//./<?. /2. 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 


Presented    by~Fv-o-^.  UV(.-&.  (^^een^^-^-^_ 

Dwision    >wS.) ..I.qO 
Section     .' 

Coi 


?y 


THE   DECIDING  VOICE 


OF   THE 


MONUMENTS 

IN 

BIBLICAL     CRITICISM 


MELVIN  GROVE  KYLE,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Liecturer  on  Biblical  Archaeologry, 
Xenia  Theological  Seminary 


BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 

OBERLIN,  OHIO 

1912 


Copyright  1912 

BY 
BiBLIOTHECA  SaCRA  COMPANY 


COMPOSED  AND  PRI^fTED  AT  THE 

WAVERLY  PRESS 

Bt  the  Williams  &  Wilkins  Companit 

Baltimore,  U.  S.  A. 


To 

GEORGE  FREDERICK  WRIGHT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  F.G.S.A. 

In  Gratitude  and  Affection 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface xi 

Introduction  by  the  Reverend  Professor  James  Orr,  D.D xv 

Chapter  I 

The  subject  stated,  defined,  and  analyzed 1- 

PART  I.  THE  FUNCTION  OF  ARCHEOLOGY  IN  CRITICISM 

Chapter  II 

Archaeology  supplies  the  historical  setting  of  Scripture 11 

Chapter  III 

Archaeology  gives  guidance  to  methods  of  criticism 20 

I.  Concerning  presuppositions 20 

II.  Concerning  the  canons  of  criticism 21 

III.  Concerning  the  value  and  influence  of  literary  form.  ...  23 

IV.  Concerning  the  interpretation  of  ancient  literature 26 

Chapter  IV 

Archaeology  provides  facts  with  which  to  test  critical  theories. .  29 
I.  No  theory  to  be  finally  accepted  and  made  applicable  to 

faith  and  life  until  tested  and  attested  by  facts ....  31 
II.  A  theory  which  meets  all  the  known  conditions  of  the  case 

in  hand,  not  by  that  fact  proved  to  be  true 32 

1.  In  life 34 

2.  In  literature 35 

3.  In  history 37 

III.  Only  archaeology  is  bringing  forth  any  new  facts  on  the 

questions  raised  by  criticism 39 


VI  CONTENTS 

PART    II.  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  TESTING  OF  CRITICAL 
THEORIES  BY  ARCH^OLOGICAL  FACTS 

Chapter  V  -^ 

PAGE 

Theories  not  affecting  historicity  or  integrity  of  Scripture 45 

I.  Theories  corroborated 48 

1.  The  geographical  and  topographical  trustworthiness 

of  Scripture 48 

2.  The  ethnographical  correctness  of  Scripture 51 

3.  Biblical  chronology  a  real  system  and  trustworthy. .  54 

4.  The  correctness  of  the  imagery  of  the  Bible 58 

5.  The  accuracy  of  Scripture  in  both  the  original  and 

the  copies 60 

Chapter  Vlt 

Theories  not  affecting  historicity  or  integrity  of  Scripture 62 

I.  Theories  corroborated — continued 62 

6.  The  location  of  the  Garden  of  Eden 62 

7.  The  geological  theory  of  the  flood 63 

8.  The  geological  theory  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom 

and  Gomorrah 67 

9.  The  relation  between  the  mysterious  Hyksos  kings 

of  Egypt  and  the  Patriarchs 68 

Chapter  VIL 

Theories  not  affecting  historicity  or  integrity  of  Scripture 73 

II.  Theories  discredited 73 

1.  Abraham  a  pioneer  of  civilization 73 

2.  The  mysterious  character  of  Melchizedek 75 

3.  The  old  assumed  system  of  epochal  chronology  for 

early  Bible  history 76 

Chapter  VIII*' 

Theories  affecting  the  historicity  or  integrity  of  Scripture 79 

I.  Theories  discredited 80 

1.  The  ignorance  of  the  Partriarchal  age 80 

2.  The  Nomadic,  semi-barbarous  condition  of  Palestine 

in  Patriarchal  times  and  the  impossibility  of 
high  religious  ideas  among  the  Patriarchs 85 

3.  The  evolution  of  Israel's  culture  from  a  Palestinian 

origin  and  environment 91 

4.  Anachronisms 95 


CONTENTS  Vll 

Chapter  IX >^ 

PAGE 

Theories  affecting  the  historicity  or  integrity  of  Scripture 98 

I.  Theories  discredited — continued 98 

5.  The  mythical  character  of  the  early  narratives  of 

the  Bible 98 

II.  Theories  corroborated 109 

Chapter  X 

Theories  just  now  challenged Ill 

I.  Babylonian  origin  of  Semitic  culture 112 

II.  The  gradual  invasion  of  Palestine 115 

III.  The  post-Christian  view  of  the  Hermetic  writings 119 

IV.  The  derogatory  view  of  the  Alexandrian  dialect  in  New 

Testament  Greek 122 

Chapter  XI^ 

Reconstructive  theories  not  confirmed 124 

I.  The  unhistorical  character  of  Genesis  xiv 120 

II.  The  Patriarchs  not  persons  but  personifications 134 

III.  The  rude  and  crude  civilization  of  Palestine  in  Patri- 
archal days 138 

Chapter  XII 

Reconstructive  theories  not  confirmed — continued HO 

IV.  The  desert  Egypt 140 

^y^ .   The    comparative    unimportance    of    Moses   as    a   law- 
giver     142 

w'VI.  The  naturalistic  origin  of  Israel's  religion  from    astral 

myths 14G 

VII.   The  late  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 151 

Chapter  XIII 

Fallacies:  The  sources  of  diverse  conclusions  among  honest  and 

sincere  seekers  after  truth 170 

I.  Fallacies  introduced  by  presuppositions 171 

II.  The  fallacy  of  deduction  without  comparison,  or  without 

sufficient  induction 173 

III.  The  fallacy  of  seeking  after  discord 174 

IV.  The  fallacy  of  excluding  a  part  of  the  evidence 176 

V.  The  fallacy  of  unscientific  speculation 179 


Vlll  CONTENTS 

I 
PART  III.  THE  PROGRESS  OF  ARCH^OLOGICAL  RESEARCH    '. 
IN  TESTING  THE  BIBLICAL  NARRATIVE  AND  SET- 
TLING QUESTIONS  RAISED  BY  CRITICISM 

Chaptek  XIV 

PAGE 

The  beginnings  of  history 185 

I.  The  handmaids  of  history 187 

II.  The  dispersion 194 

III.  The  rise  of  civilizations 195 

Chapter  XV 

Beginnings  of  history — continued 201 

IV.  The  source  and  course  of  Semitic  culture 201 

V.  Babylonian  influence  in  Canaan 201 

Chapter  XV  f 

The  Patriarchal  period 210 

I.  Palestinian  civilization  in  the  Patriarchal  age 210 

II.  The  first  Pilgrim  Father 212 

III.  The  Patriarchal  reception  in  Egypt 214 

IV.  The  beginnings  of  revelation  and  of  Israel's  institutions. .  217 
V.  Isaac 219 

Chapter  XVII 

The  tribal  period 221 

I.  The  descent  into  Egypt  and  the  sojourn  there 221 

II.  Hebrew  slavery  in  Egypt 229 

III.  Moses 233 

Chapter  XVIII 

The  tribal  period — continued 236 

IV.  The  Exodus 236 

V.  The  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness 239 

VI.  The  turning  back  from  Kadesh-Barnea 242 

VII.  The  Pentateuchal  question 243 

Chapter  XIX 

The  national  period 253 

I.  The  wideness  of  God's  providence 253 

II.  The  genealogical  lists 255 


CONTENTS  IX 

PAGE 

TIL  The  times  of  the  conquest 257 

IV.  The  political  horizon  of  the  two  kingdoms 266 

1.  Egypt 267 

2.  Philistia 273 

3.  Moab 274 

4.  Syria 277 

5.  Assyria 277 

6.  Babylonia 279 

V.  The  prophetic  history  and  literature 280 

1.  The  unity  of  Isaiah 282 

2.  The  life  and  book  of  Daniel 286 

Chapter  XX 

Conclusion 293 

Appendix 297 

Subject  index 311 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

I  will  not  indulge  myself  by  yielding  to  the  very  insid- 
ious temptation  to  say  in  the  preface  what  one  has 
forgotten  to  say  in  the  book,  but  will  keep  strictly  to 
the  delightful  task  of  expressing  my  gratitude  to  those 
who  have  helped  me.  Here  I  am  so  embarrassed  that 
I  am  tempted  to  stop  short  and  say  no  more.  Everyone 
who  writes  anything  in  these  days  of  encyclopaedic 
information,  when  the  world  is  full  of  experts  on  every 
kind  of  subject,  is  of  necessity  indebted  to  so  many 
for  help  that  the  preface,  to  do  full  justice  to  all,  is 
in  danger  of  becoming  as  big  as  the  book  that  follows. 
Of  no  other  two  related  subjects  is  this  more  true  than 
of  Archaeology  and  Criticism.  The  literature  of  both 
fields  of  research  is  so  voluminous  that  everyone  must 
avail  himself  of  the  guidance  given  by  specialists  in 
many  different  departments.  That  I  have  done  so 
in  this  case  every  scholar  will  know  without  being 
told  here.  I  only  wish  to  express  my  great  gratitude 
for  that  privilege,  without  which  a  work  of  this  kind 
would  not  be  possible  in  a  whole  lifetime. 

There  is  something  else  for  which  I  am  indebted; 
that  spirit  of  appreciation  which  disputants  only  ac- 
quire through  a  wholesome  respect  for  their  opponents 
for  whose  wisdom  and  learning  and  candor  they  have 
the  most  profound  regard.  The  blessed  confraternity 
of  seekers  after  truth,  has,  I  feel,  by  its  precious  fellow- 
ship done  much  for  the  spirit  of  this  book.  If  to  any 
it  does  not  yet  seem  to  be  all  that  it  ought  to  be  in 


Xll  PREFACE 

spirit,  then  I  shall  hope  to  acquire  still  greater  obliga- 
tions to  my  opponents  by  absorbing  more  of  that  spirit 
from  their  criticisms  of  my  book. 

Despairing  of  acknowledging  by  particular  mention 
my  debt  in  these  two  respects,  for  materials  and  for 
the  charitable  spirit,  there  are  yet  a  few  names  which 
I  must  set  here  in  this  preface.  There  is  Professor 
George  Frederick  Wright  of  Oberlin,  the  devout  scien- 
tist, the  profound  theologian,  the  man  of  letters,  the 
appreciative  friend  of  scholarship  everywhere  and 
however  antagonistic,  to  him  perhaps  more  than  to 
anyone  else,  I  am  indebted  for  whatever  I  may  have 
acquired  of  the  spirit  that  loves  our  literary  enemies. 
One  other  I  must  mention  with  him,  one  whose  views 
differ  most  radically  from  many  of  my  own.  Professor 
George  A.  Barton  of  Bryn  Mawr,  through  whom,  in 
a  somewhat  extended  controversial  correspondence, 
I  came  practically  into  some  good  measure  of  that 
kindly  appreciation  of  antagonistic  scholarship  which 
is  one  of  the  joys  of  hfe.  His  criticism  of  this  book 
will  not  be  mild,  but  none  will  be  more  appreciated. 

Turning  toward  my  debt  to  literary  sources,  it  is 
still  more  difficult  to  make  a  brief  list  of  those  to  whom 
I  am  especially  under  obligation,  but  certainly  to  none 
more  than  to  Professor  James  Orr  of  Glasgow  whose 
professorial  work,  which  has  passed  right  through 
nearly  all  the  great  critical  controversies  of  the  past 
half  century,  has  enabled  him  to  afford  to  the  world 
through  his  books  such  an  index  to  the  literature  of 
Old  Testament  criticism  as  is  a  constant  marvel  to 
Bible  students.  For  this,  I,  in  common  with  many 
others,  am  much  indebted  to  him,  and  I  owe  besides 
an  individual  debt  of, gratitude  for  the  note  of  Intro- 


PREFACE  Xlll 

duction  for  my  book  to  that  public  which  knows  him 
so  well. 

Then,  Professor  William  Flinders  Petrie,  whose  read- 
iness to  help  everybody  is  a  delightful  characteristic 
not  too  common  in  the  world;  to  him  I  am  indebted 
for  personal  assistance  as  noted  in  the  pages  that 
follow,  and  still  more  for  unrestricted  access  to  his  val- 
uable archaeological  library  at  University  College,  Lon- 
don. And  the  privilege  of  many  weeks  of  fellowship 
in  his  explorations  in  Egypt,  in  the  true  ''oriental 
atmosphere,"  has  been  of  inestimable  value. 

I  am  very  grateful  also  to  Halil  Bey,  Director  of 
the  Imperial  Ottoman  Museum  at  Constantinople  and 
to  Professor  Herrman  V.  Hilprecht,  as  Curator  of  the 
Babylonian  Section,  for  special  facilities  afforded  me 
in  the  examination  of  the  Palestinian  antiquities  in  the 
museum. 

To  my  friend  Professor  W.  Max  Miiller,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania University,  I  am  under  obligation  for  that  wide 
use  made  of  his  Egyptological  researches  which  is  so 
manifest  in  this  book,  for  help  afforded  on  many  of 
the  subjects  discussed  within,  and  most  of  all  for  the 
stimulus  of  his  marvelously  exact  scholarship:  and  to 
still  another  dear  friend,  Professor  Albert  T.  Clay  of 
Yale  University,  my  obligation  is  so  apparent  in  the 
library  references  of  this  book  as  to  require  no  further 
mention  than  that  which  gratitude  compels. 

To  all  these  scholars  and  to  many  others,  I  extend 
my  thanks,  while  at  the  same  time,  I  take  upon  myself 
to  the  full  the  responsibility  for  all  the  opinions 
expressed  in  the  pages  that  follow. 

I  hope  I  may  be  allowed  also  in  this  public  way  to 
acknowledge  another  tender  obUgation  of  a  more  private 


XIV  PREFACE 

character,  the  debt  I  owe  to  the  many  christian  friends 
of  the  Seventh  United  Presbyterian  Church,  Phila- 
delphia, at  Frankford,  and  to  the  pastor,  my  beloved 
colleague,  the  Reverend  Paul  Calhoun.  Through  the 
loyal  devotion  of  all  of  these  has  the  research  work 
which  lies  back  of  this  book  been  made  possible. 

The  basis  of  Part  I,  and  largely  of  Part  II,  of  this 
book  is  an  article  on  Archaeology  and  Criticism  prepared 
for  the  new  International  Standard  Bible  Encyclopaedia. 
This  relation  is  most  cordially  acknowledged.  From 
the  analysis  of  the  subject  given  in  that  article,  I  could 
not  depart  very  far,  if  I  would.  Much  of  Part  III  has 
been  given  in  a  limited  way  to  the  pubUc  in  the  research 
lectures  at  Xenia  Theological  Seminary  and  at  other 
institutions  of  learning,  and  in  Bible  Conferences  at 
Winona  and  at  Grove  City,  and  some,  also,  from  differ- 
ent portions  of  the  book  has  been  published  in  various 
scientific  and  religious  journals,  specific  acknowledg- 
ment to  which  is  given  at  the  proper  places  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages.  The  book  as  a  whole,  however,  presents 
a  view  of  its  subject  which,  in  its  method  and  in  its 
completeness,  the  author  ventures  to  think  is  somewhat 
unique. 

I  offer  no  excuse  or  apology  for  adding  another  to 
the  long-  list  of  books  which  discuss  the  Monuments. 
I  have  labored  as  one  of  those  who  surrender  themselves 
to  the  constant  guidance  of  Him  who  has  promised  to 
lead  us  "into  all  truth." 

M.  G.  Kyle. 

Philadelphia. 


INTRODUCTION 
By  the  Reverend  Professor  James  Orr,  D.D. 

Few  words  really  are  needed  to  introduce  a  book 
which  so  clearly  and  ably  exhibits  its  own  purpose  as 
that  of  Dr.  Kyle.  Oriental  Archaeology  is  a  subject 
which  has  come  with  such  vast  strides  to  the  front, 
has  been  fraught  with  such  surprises,  and  now  covers 
so  immense  a  territory,  that  any  book  which  furnishes 
an  intelligent  interpretation  of  its  results  is  sure  of  a 
hearty  welcome.  Much  more  is  this  the  case  when 
what  is  proposed  is  to  illustrate  how  the  new  light 
streaming  in  from  past  millenniums  in  the  East  affects 
our  estimate  of  God's  holy  Word,  and  our  judgment 
on  the  keen  and  relentless,  often  also  most  reckless, 
criticism  which  has  in  late  years  been  applied  to  that 
Word. 

There  is  need,  no  doubt,  in  the  case  of  both  assail- 
ants and  defenders  of  the  Bible,  of  great  care  and 
caution  in  the  application  of  the  data  supplied  by 
Archaeology.  Exploration  has  been  amazingly  rich 
in  results,  but  the  temptation  is  great  at  every  step 
to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  what  is  actually  proved,  and 
to  mix  up  theory  and  conjecture,  and  make  large  and 
premature  deductions  from  scanty  and  often  ill-under- 
stood material.  Ai'chaeology  is  not  yet  an  exact  sci- 
ence, and  while  there  is  happily  a  large  and  ever-grow- 
ing area  of  undoubtedly  established  facts,  there  is  also  a 
not  inconsiderable  margin  in  regard  to  which  too  pos- 


XVI  INTRODUCTION 

itive  assertion  is  still  hazardous.  Everyone  who  has 
tried  to  follow  the  course  of  discovery  is  painfully 
aware  how  much  modification  of  earlier  conclusions  is 
found  to  be  necessary  with  the  inevitable  increase  of 
knowledge.  Add  to  this  the  circumstance  that  even 
where  the  facts  are  not  disputed,  there  is  always  the 
possibihty  of  interpreting  the  same  facts  differently. 
As  Epictetus  said,  everything  can  be  laid  hold  of  by 
two  handles,  and  according  to  the  presuppositions  with 
which  the  subject  is  approached,  the  most  opposite 
conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  the  same  apparent 
premises. 

It  is  a  merit  of  the  present  book  that  the  author  has 
his  eyes  wide  open  to  these  possibilities  of  error,  and 
seeks  diligently  to  keep  them  in  view  in  his  own  treat- 
ment. Just  because  of  the  clash  of  opinions  on  many 
points,  it  becomes  the  more  interesting  to  try  to  dis- 
cover how  the  advance  of  knowledge  on  the  whole  is 
affecting  the  attitude  one  is  justified  in  taking  up  to 
the  Bible.  In  the  judgment  of  many — the  present 
writer  included — there  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  the 
general  answer.  The  progress  of  knowledge  has  not 
overthrown,  but  has  in  innumerable  and  surprising 
ways,  helped  to  confirm,  the  view  one  derives  from  the 
Bible  itself  as  to  the  beginnings  of  human  history,  the 
character  of  ancient  civilizations  and  the  place  of  the 
Hebrews  in  the  midst  of  these,  the  old  family  relation- 
ships and  distributions  of  mankind,  the  verisimilitude 
of  the  picture  of  patriarchal  conditions,  of  life  in  Egypt, 
in  the  desert,  and  in  Canaan,  of  the  later  history  of 
the  kingdoms,  and  altogether  of  the  course  of  events 
as  depicted  in  holy  Scripture,  in  contrast  with  the  violent 
and  hypothetical  constructions,  based  largely  on  an 


INTKODUCTION  XVII 

a  priori  theory  of  development,  of  the  modern  critical 
schools.  This  also  is  the  thesis  which  Dr.  Kyle  sets 
himself  with  much  clearness  and  success  in  these  pages 
to  estabhsh.  In  this  task  he  has  the  advantage  of 
having  himself  taken  part  in  the  work  of  exploration, 
and  personally  visited,  and  at  first-hand  had  to  do  with, 
the  places  and  things  he  writes  about. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  so  wide  a  field,  to  agree  with 
every  one  of  Dr.  Kyle's  conclusions,  to  feel  that,  over 
all,  he  makes  out  a  remarkably  strong  case,  and  while 
firmly  upholding  conservative  conclusions,  does  so  in 
a  moderate  and  candid  spirit  towards  those  opposed 
to  him.  His  exposition  will  at  least  be  acknowledged 
to  be  always  fresh,  lucid,  and  interesting.  That  his 
studies  have  had  the  result  of  confirming  him  in  his 
conviction  of  the  untenableness  of  the  prevailing  Well- 
hausen  hypothesis,  is  hardly  surprising  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  effect  seems  to  have  been  the  same  in 
the  minds  of  the  greater  number  of  archaeologists, 
many  of  them,  as  Sayce,  Hommel,  Naville,  Hal^vy, 
formerly  adherents  of  that  school,  but  now  among  its 
severest  critics.  Facts  seem  to  be  proving  too  strong 
for  the  literary  critics,  whose  schemes  are  undergoing 
disintegration  in  many  other  ways. 


CHAPTER  I 

The  Subject  Stated,  Defined,  and  Analyzed 

Round  about  is  the  great  green  circle  of  the  Pocono 
Mountains  of  the  Blue  Ridge  range  in  northeastern 
Pennsylvania.  It  is  an  inclosed  basin.  From  the 
lookout  on  Buck  Hill,  nearly  every  square  mile  of  that 
basin  can  be  seen,  but  nothing  beyond.  It  may  be 
assumed  that  the  great  world  without  corresponds,  in 
a  general  way,  to  this  little  world  within,  but  one  might 
circle  around  endlessly  within  these  mountain  walls 
without  ever  knowing  with  certainty  that  it  is  so ;  with- 
out, indeed,  having  any  means  of  putting  that  assump- 
tion to  the  test.  But  a  way  out  has  been  made.  Here 
the  melting  ice  of  some  long  past  glacial  period  swirled 
round  and  round  in  hopeless  effort  to  escape  from  this 
environing  mountain  ridge.  But  yonder  below,  twenty- 
five  miles  away,  at  that  strange  notch  in  the  horizon, 
at  last  some  Titanic  force  of  geologic  time  cleft  the  rim 
of  this  basin  with  the  Delaware  Water  Gap.  Through 
it  an  outlet  was  found  to  the  world  beyond.  Through 
it  we  may  pass  out  from  this  inclosed  basin,  and  from 
our  never-satisfied  curiosity  concerning  the  correspond- 
ing world  without,  to  put  our  theories  of  that  world  to 
the  test  of  observation. 

Biblical  criticism  of  the  past  half-century  has  been 
moving  in  just  such  an  inclosed  basin.  Eichhorn,  the 
founder  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  defined  it  as  ''the 
discovery  and  verification  of  the  facts  regarding  the 

1 


2  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

origin,  form,  and  value  of  literary  productions  upon 
the  basis  of  their  internal  characters."'^  This  definition 
is  still  adequate  for  the  essential  features  of  the  method, 
though  in  its  use  it  is  often  combined  with  the  broader 
historical  method  that  draws  much  help  from  external 
evidence  also.  The  Higher  Criticism,  then,  professedly 
deals  only  with  internal  evidence.  But  what  is  internal 
is  inclosed.  Thus  the  Higher  Criticism  in  its  essential 
character  is  a  circumscribed  inquiry,  and  has  an  incom- 
plete, because  inclosed,  existence  unable  to  trace  its 
own  correspondences.  It  runs  an  environed  course 
within  an  impassable  horizon;  i.e.,  impassable  to  it.  The 
first  object  of  its  inquiry  is  the  origin  of  a  literature. 
But  the  origin  of  a  literature,  its  author,  and  the  times 
from  which  it  comes,  and  all  the  infinitely  varied  influ- 
ences which  the  times  bring  to  bear  upon  it,  however 
much  they  may  be  reflected  within  that  literature,  lie 
wholly  without  it.  They  make  the  historical  setting, 
illustrate  the  imagery,  and  supply  the  facts  needed  to 
complete  the  picture.  It  may  be  assumed  quite  properly 
that  what  is  without  does  truly  correspond  to  that 
which  is  reflected  within  and  may  be  known  correctly 
by  it,  if  only  the  correspondences  between  them  be 
read  aright.  To  read  them  aright  by  circling  round 
and  round  in  its  inclosed  basin  is  the  task  the  Higher 
Criticism  has  set  itself.  There  is  no  end  to  this  circu- 
lar path,  no  way  inherent  in  the  method  by  which  it 
may  test  decisively  its  theories  formed  within  the 
circle  of  Biblical  Literature  concerning  the  facts  which 
lie  without.  But  a  way  out  has  been  found,  a  water 
gap  here  also.  As  geology  provided  for  an  outlet  from 
this  Pocono  basin  to  the  environing  world  beyond,  so 
archaeology,  the  geology  of  human  history,  has  by  its 


DEFINITION   AND   ANALYSIS  3 

researches  found  an  outlet  from  this  inclosed  basin 
of  the  internal  evidences  of  Biblical  Literature,  a  way- 
out  for  the  examination  of  the  environing  circle  of 
times  and  circumstances.  It  has  thus  furnished  a 
convenient  and  effective  way  of  putting  to  the  final 
test  of  actual  observation  the  theories  formed  within 
this  circle  of  internal  evidence  concerning  the  facts 
that  lie  without. 

The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  point  out  this  ancient 
water  gap  to  the  old  world  of  human  history,  this 
outlet  through  which  criticism  may  pass  out  of  its 
inclosed  basin  of  internal  evidence  to  test  by  obser- 
vation the  correspondence  of  its  theories  with  the  actual 
facts,  the  times  and  circumstances  themselves  in  that 
surrounding  ancient  world:  then,  having  pointed  out 
the  outlet,  it  is  purposed  to  lead  the  reader  through 
it  to  observe  for  himself  the  results  of  that  test. 

DEFINITIONS 

Archaeology  is  the  science  of  antiquities.  One  might 
almost  describe  it  in  a  popular  way  as  the  science  of  old 
dead  things:  dead  men  of  olden  times  and  their  dead  cus- 
toms, dead  laws,  dead  institutions, dead  empires,  dead  lan- 
guages, dead  literatures,  and  dead  rehgions,  and  in  some 
respects,  dead  art  and  dead  architecture.  One  thing 
makes  such  a  description  inadequate,  this,  namely,  that 
all  antiquities  are  not  dead.  Some  old  things  are  still 
alive,  have  been  vital  elements  in  every  age,  and  are  still 
essential  in  life,  literature,  and  morals  to  this  day. 
We  write  with  letters;  we  set  our  clock  faces  staring 
at  the  world  with  their  twelvefold  marks  of  division: 
we  try  to  teach  modern  life  and  even  modern  politics 


4  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  Ten  Commandments.  But  these  things  are  all 
antiquities.  We  must  not  deny  the  ancient  world  its 
meed  of  honor,  nor  refuse  the  origin  of  letters  to  the 
Phoenicians  or  to  the  people  from  whom  they  received 
them,  nor  our  duodecimal  computation  of  time  to  the 
Babylonians,  nor  the  Ten  Commandments  to  Moses. 
So  the  popular  conception  of  antiquities  as  old  dead 
things  has  its  limitations.  Archaeology,  the  science  of 
antiquities,  has  to  do  with  some  things  still  very  much 
alive. 

But  the  science  that  compasses  all  that  is  dead  and 
much  that  still  lives,  extends  beyond  the  compass  of 
a  man.  Professor  Petrie,  in  his  recent  Methods  and 
Aims  of  Archceology,  has  called  this  science,  ''The 
knowledge  of  how  man  has  acquired  his  present  posi- 
tion and  powers,"^  and  adds:  "The  mass  of  new  mate- 
rial which  has  been  collected,  especially  in  the  last 
fifty  years,  cannot  be  mastered  by  one  man,  if  he  is  to 
find  time  for  original  work."^  Thus  archaeology  by 
its  growth  has  come  to  be  not  one  science,  a  specialty, 
but  a  whole  system  of  special  sciences  each  with  its 
own  territory  and  a  more  or  less  definite  horizon,  and 
any  discussion  of  the  subject,  to  be  perfectly  intelli- 
gible, must  exactly  define  its  scope. 

Archaeology,  as  the  science  of  antiquities,  is  here  to 
be  confined  within  the  Biblical  field,  a  field  which  has 
been  variously  delimited. 

De  Wette  held  that  "The  content  of  Hebrew  archae- 
ology extends  to  that  which  belongs  to  the  whole  state 
of  the  Hebrew  nation  in  its  liistorical  manifestation."' 
In  his  classifications,  he  has  the  following:  "Sources, 
Monuments :  Literary  sources.  Class  I.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment.    The  first  and  most  important  source  is  the 


DEFINITION  AND   ANALYSIS  5 

Old  Testament,  which  has  the  advantage  of  a  very 
careful  estimate  of  the  separate  writings  of  the  ancients 
and  a  stronger  appreciation  of  their  historical  charac- 
ters." Others  have  regarded  this  field  as  much  nar- 
rower. The  scope  of  Biblical  archaeology  most  generally 
recognized  in  later  times  is  embraced  in  the  threefold 
division :i  I.  Domestic  Antiquities;  II.  Civil  Antiqui- 
ties; III.  Sacred  Antiquities.  Professor  I.  M.  Price 
says:  "There  is  still  another  section  to  add  on  the  land 
of  Palestine  itself. "^ 

But  since  antiquities  are  not  necessarily  dead,  and 
since  the  Bible  itself  is  one  of  the  still  living  antiquities, 
Biblical  archaeology  properly  includes  not  only  all 
facts  bearing  upon  the  Bible  which  had  been  lost  and 
have  been  found,  and  all  literary  remains  of  antiquity 
which  have  brought  down  to  this  day  information 
which  throws  light  on  Biblical  questions,  and  ''another 
section  ....  on  the  land  of  Palestine  itself," 
but  also,  as  of  the  first  importance,  this  greatest  of 
all  antiquities  in  the  world,  the  Bible  itself.  There 
is  a  widespread  tendency  in  some  quarters  to  leave 
the  Bible  out  of  the  list  of  witnesses,  on  the  gound  that 
it  is  on  trial.  However  plausible  this  may  seem,  it  is 
illogical.  We  might  as  well  rule  out  the  most  impor- 
tant part  of  the  earth  as  a  witness  in  geology  or  an 
old  man  from  telling  his  own  life  story,  as  rule  out  the 
Bible  from  any  discussion  of  Biblical  archaeology.  It 
has  the  most  to  tell  and  there  is  no  more  reliable  wit- 
ness.^ Indeed,  as  "the  proper  study  of  mankind  is 
man,"  and  of  the  geologist,  the  earth,  so  the  most  im- 
portant study  of  the  Biblical  archaeologist  is  the  Bible. 

Criticism   is   the   art   of  scrutiny.     This   definitio 
would  the  more  completely  comprehend  all  that  passe 


6  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

under  the  name  of  criticism,  were  it  said  that  criticism 
is  the  art  of  scrutiny  when  it  does  not  descend  into 
unsympathetic  inquisitiveness  or,  worse,  into  mere 
faultfinding.  When  it  does  so  demean  itself,  it  has  no 
boundaries,  no  horizon.  Much  of  the  speculative  criti- 
cism of  the  times  soars  aloft  like  a  balloon,  with  equal 
uncertainty  of  flight,  and  nobody  knows  where  it  will 
come  down,  or  if  ever.  If  the  field  of  archaeological 
facts  is  beyond  the  compass  of  a  man  and  a  lifetime, 
what  shall  we  say  of  the  boundless  flights  of  speculative 
criticisms? 

So  criticism  is  here  to  be  limited  in  its  scope,  and 
mainly,  though  not  exclusively,  to  the  literary  criticism 
of  the  Bible,  now,  following  Eichhorn,  commonly  called 
"the  higher  criticism."  But  we  cannot  even  yet 
move  on  in  safety  without  stopping  long  enough  to 
state  exactly  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  Higher 
Criticism,  for  the  phrase  "higher  criticism"  is  as  vari- 
ously used,  and  its  use,  without  proper  definition,  as 
liable  to  be  misunderstood,  as  the  word  "evolution." 
In  this  discussion  we  will  neither  take  the  toplofty 
way  of  those  who  assume  the  Higher  Criticism  to  be 
the  sum  of  all  wisdom,  nor  the  imprecatory  way  of 
those  who  proclaim  it  a  "doctrine  of  devils,"  but  keep 
to  the  middle  of  the  plain  road  marked  out  by  Eich- 
horn's  definition,  "the  discovery  and  verification  of 
the  facts  regarding  the  origin,  form,  and  value  of 
literary  productions  upon  the  basis  of  their  internal 
characters."^  This  is  the  true  Higher  Criticism.  In 
this  its  original  and  proper  signification  it  is  accepted 
by  all  critics  as  a  legitimate  and  helpful  method. 


VALUE  OF  ARCHEOLOGY  IN  CRITICISM  7 

ANALYSIS 

Having  thus  come  to  an  exact  understanding  of 
terms,  it  will  be  plain  that  ''archaeology"  and  "criti- 
cism" in  this  discussion  are  meant  to  designate  the 
bearing  of  the  archaeology  of  Bible  lands  upon  the 
criticism,  especially  the  Higher  Criticism,  of  the  Bible. 
The  subject  as  thus  defined  calls  for  the  discussion 
of:  I,  What  archaeology  can  do  in  the  case,  the  powers, 
rights  and  authority,  that  is  to  say,  the  FUNCTION, 
of  archaeology  in  criticism;  II,  What  archaeology  has 
done  in  the  case,  the  resulting  effects  of  such  archae- 
ological evidence,  that  is  to  say,  the  HISTORY  of  the 
bearing  of  archaeology  upon  the  criticism  of  the  Bible; 
III,  The  present  state  of  the  discussion,  the  Bible  in 
the  present  light  from  archaeology,  that  is  to  say,  the 
PROGRESS  of  archaeology  in  the  determining  of  criti- 
cal questions. 


PAKT  I 

FUNCTION 


No  theory  of  Biblical  criticism  is  to  be  finally  accepted  and  made 
a  part  of  faith  and  life  until  tested  and  attested  by  archseological 
facts. 

"From  the  place  where  the  conflagration  was  first  kindled,  the 
firemen  keep  away.  I  mean  the  domain  of  religious  antiquities  and 
dominant  religious  ideas,  that  whole  region  as  Vatke  in  his  Biblical 
Theology  has  marked  it  out.  But  only  here  where  the  conflict  was 
kindled,  can  it  be  brought  to  a  definite  conclusion." — Wellhausen. 

"In  the  Wellhausen  school,  as  we  have  seen,  literary  criticism  of 
the  Old  Testament  came  under  the  control  of  the  history  of  religions 
and  institutions:  contemporaneously,  however,  with  the  develop- 
ment of  this  school,  a  new  claimant  to  be  heard  has  put  in  its  voice, 
in  the  science  of  archajology,  which  bids  fair,  before  long,  to  control 
both  criticism  and  history." — Orr. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Historical  Setting  of  Scripture 

The  function  of  archaeology  in  criticism  has  only 
recently  been  given  much  attention.  And,  as  is  inevi- 
table on  all  subjects  of  importance,  and  especially 
where  predilections  are  certain  to  play  so  large  a  part, 
opinions  concerning  the  value  of  archaeological  argu- 
ment and  the  cogency  of  archaeological  evidence,  when 
applied  to  the  crucial  questions  of  criticism,  have 
varied  greatly.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  caution  generally 
corresponds  to  anticipation.  Naturally,  we  approach 
more  readily  and  rapidly  toward  supposed  friends  than 
suspected  enemies,  and  are  less  inclined  to  take  account 
of  a  new  field  of  investigation  that  does  not  promise 
much  to  our  preconceptions.  This  is  not  to  cast  reflec- 
tions upon  the  honesty  and  candor  of  all  or  any  schools 
of  criticism,  but  simply  to  recognize  a  very  human 
characteristic.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  solu- 
tion of  many  of  our  critical  and  even  theological  prob- 
lems would  be  found  in  a  careful  study  of  ourselves. 
But  explain  the  phenomena  as  we  will,  the  fact  is,  as 
stated,  that  few  have  given  much  attention  to  the 
function  of  archaeology  in  criticism. 

Biblical  Encyclopaedists  generally,  until  the  most 
recent,  have  not  given  this  subject  a  place  at  all.  A 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Hastings,  omits  it  entirely.  Nor 
can  the  subject  be  said  to  be  indirectly  introduced, 
except  it  be  in  a  very  subordinate  way  in  the  discussion 

11 


1-2  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

of  other  subjects.  Indeed,  the  very  word  ''archaeology" 
is  entirely  omitted  from  the  index.  The  Encyclopwdia 
Biblica,  Cheyne,  has  no  article  on  either  archaeology 
or  antiquities,  nor  is  there  anywhere  in  the  work  suffi- 
cient place  given  the  subject  that  it  should  be  indexed. 
The  recentness  with  which  the  subject  of  archaeology 
in  Biblical  criticism  has  come  to  the  front  could  have 
no  better  illustration  than  the  complete  omission  from 
these  two  great  Biblical  encylcopaedias  of  any  explicit 
reference  to  the  subject.  Such  omission  was  scarcely 
noticed  at  the  time  the  works  were  issued;  today  it 
would  be  inexcusable  if  an  oversight,  and  a  tacit  con- 
fession if  intentional.  A  subject  that  is  engaging  the 
keenest  minds  of  the  most  radical  as  well  as  the  most 
conservative  critics  cannot  wisely  be  ignored. 

Turning  to  other  Dictionaries  of  the  Bible,  there  is 
found  generally  the  same  omission  of  this  subject, 
except  in  the  most  recent  works.  Smith's  Bible  Diction- 
ary; Kitto,  Encyclopcedia  of  Biblical  Literature;  Ham- 
burger, Real-Encyclopoedie;  Eadie,  Biblical  Encyclopcedia, 
have  nothing  on  this  subject.  McClintock  and  Strong, 
Encyclopcedia  of  Biblical  and  Ecclesisatical  Literature, 
has  an  article  on  "Biblical  Archaeology"  consisting  en- 
tirely of  Biblical  geography,  also  an  article  of  a  general 
character  under  the  title  ''Sacred  Antiquities."  Com- 
ing to  works  of  more  recent  date,  the  Catholic  Encyclo- 
pcedia has  an  able  and  comprehensive  article  on  "Bibli- 
cal Antiquities."  The  Jewish  Encyclopcedia  has  also  a 
helpful  article  of  five  pages  on  "Biblical  Archaeology." 
The  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopcedia  has  an  article.  But 
even  in  these  later  Bible  Dictionaries,  where  the  subject 
of  archaeology  is  presented,  it  is  almost  always  treated 


HISTORICAL  SETTING   OF   SCRIPTURE  13 

in  a  general  way.  On  the  function  of  archaeology  in 
criticism,  the  rights,  power  and  authority  of  archaeology 
in  critical  discussion,  there  is  almost  nothing,  certainly 
nothing  approaching  an  acknowledgment  that  archae- 
ology is  counted  upon  for  very  much  in  the  settlement 
of  critical  controversies. 

But  what  have  the  critics  to  say  upon  this  subject? 
Since  encyclopaedias  have  Uttle  or  nothing  to  say  on 
the  subject  of  archaeology  and  criticism,  it  is  to  be 
expected  that  critics,  who  are  contributors  to  all  the 
encyclopaedias,  will  have  as  little  to  say  in  their  own 
individual  writings.  The  expectation  is  not  disap- 
pointed. Where  they  have  said  anything  at  all  on  the 
subject,  they  have  varied  much  in  their  estimate  of 
the  value  of  archaeology  in  criticism,  according  to  their 
individual  predilections  and  the  preconceptions  of  their 
critical  theories,  but  for  the  most  part,  until  very 
recently,  archaeology  has  not  been  given  a  commanding, 
or  even  prominent,  place  by  critics.  Most  use  was 
made  of  it  formerly  by  conservative  critics  but  latterly 
it  has  been  much  used  by  a  few  who  would  be  shocked 
to  be  so  designated. 

Wellhausen,  it  is  true,  seems  to  declare,  indeed  does 
declare,  for  the  dominance  of  certain  phases  of  archae- 
ology in  criticism,  in  the  beginning  of  his  History  of 
Israel  when  he  says:  ''From  the  place  where  the  con- 
flagration was  first  kindled,  the  firemen  keep  away.  I 
mean  the  domain  of  religious  antiquities  and  dominant 
religious  ideas,  that  whole  region  as  Vatke  in  his  Biblical 
Theology  has  marked  it  out.  But  only  here  where  the 
conflict  was  kindled,  can  it  be  brought  to  a  definite 
conclusion."^     But  this  is  one  of  the  canons  of  criticism 


14  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

which  Wellhausen  found  it  convenient,  for  some  reason, 
to  leave  in  almost  complete  desuetude  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  brilliant  theory. 

Driver,  in  his  admirable  essay  on  Hebrew  tradition 
in  Authority  and  Archceology,  when  discussing  the  value 
of  various  kinds  of  evidence  on  critical  questions,  says : 
"The  testimony  of  archaeology  sometimes  determines 
the  question  decisively,"^  but  rather  amusingly  adds  a 
manifest  saving  device  to  the  effect  that  archaeological 
testimony  is  ''often  strangely  misunderstood,"  and  then 
hastens  to  take  refuge  in  his  own  ark  by  declaring  the 
defeats  of  criticism  at  the  hands  of  archaeology  often 
''purely  imaginary."  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
Driver  maintained  this  same  attitude  in  his  Introduction 
in  its  early  editions,^  he  seemed  to  abandon  it  in  later 
editions,  but  has  now  returned  to  it  in  the  recent 
seventh  edition  of  Genesis.' 

Cheyne  admits  the  former  disposition  of  critics  to 
make  little  use  of  archaeology,  especially  Assyriology. 
In  his  Bible  Problems  he  says:  "I  have  no  wish  to  deny 
that  the  so-called  'higher  critics'  in  the  past  were  as  a 
rule  suspicious  of  Assyriology  as  a  young,  and,  as  they 
thought,  too  self-assertive  science,  and  too  sceptical 
as  to  the  influence  of  Babylonian  culture  in  relatively 
early  times  in  Syria,  Palestine  and  even  Arabia."* 

Orr  takes  the  most  advanced  ground  on  the  value  of 
archaeology  in  criticism,  declaring^  that  "archaeology 
bids  fair  before  long  to  control  both  criticism  and 
history,"  and  devotes  a  very  comprehensive  and  cogent 
chapter  in  his  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
illustration  of  this  advance  position. 

Eerdmans,  successor  to  Kuenen  at  Leyden,  is  not 
so  modest,  but  boldly  assumes  that  not  only  "before 


HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  SCRIPTURE  15 

long"  but  already  archaeology  does  control  both  criti- 
cism and  history;  for  he  definitely  and  absolutely  breaks 
with  the  Wellhausen  School  of  criticism  chiefly  on 
the  ground  that  archaeology  has  discredited  their  critical 
viewpoint  and  made  impossible,  indeed  absurd,  the 
historical  atmosphere  with  which  they  surround  the 
Old  Testament.  In  stating  his  views  for  English 
readers  he  says:  ''It  is  generally  accepted  by  those  who 
are  not  bound  by  dogmatic  theories  that  the  main 
lines  of  Old  Testament  criticism  may  be  traced  with 
approximate  certainty.  I  believed  so  myself  for  many 
years,  but  I  no  longer  hold  that  opinion."  ''The 
Pentateuchal  criticism  was  in  every  respect  a  product 
of  Western  thought,  Western  logic,  Western  combina- 
tion, which  has  often  forgot  that  the  history  of  religions 
and  the  living  Orient  were  contradictory  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  critical  theories."  "To  sum  up  in  con- 
clusion, I  believe  that  an  explanation  of  the  text  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  old  Israelitic  thought  will  lead 
to  a  reformation  in  Old  Testament  criticism."^ 

Wiener,  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  recent  Jewish 
critics,^  also  believes  that  the  proper  apprehension  of 
ancient  institutions,  customs,  documents  and  codes, 
i.e.,  archaeology,  and  especially  the  archaeology  of  the 
Bible  itself,  is  clearly  decisive  in  its  influence  on  the 
issue  raised  by  the  Wellhausen  School.  In  his  Essays 
in  Pentateuchal  Criticism  he  says:  "In  order  to  under- 
stand the  Pentateuch,  we  must  so  far  as  possible  re- 
store the  conditions  for  which  it  was  in  the  first  instance 
designed."^ 

Archaeologists  generally,  for  a  long  time,  have  been 
putting  forth  the  superior  claims  of  their  science  in 
critical  controversy,  sometimes  with  a  fanfare  to  all 


16  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

opponents  as  they  enter  the  lists,  and  sometimes  with 
such  quiet  unobstrusiveness  as  to  escape  altogether 
the  attention  of  the  general  pubhc. 

The  great  Brugsch/  in  his  Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs, 
without  once  stepping  aside  from  the  role  of  the  scien- 
tific Egyptologist,  yet,  in  his  marshaling  of  evidence, 
occupies  a  large  portion  of  the  field  of  criticism  in  the 
early  Bible  history,  and  nearly  always  flies  the  banner 
of  what  has  been  sometimes  contemptuously  called 
traditionalism.  Indeed,  it  is  indisputable  that  most 
archaeologists  who  have  taken  the  trouble  to  display 
critical  colors  at  all  have  been  much  inclined  to  conser- 
vatism. 

Naville  claimed  the  most  exact  verification  of  the 
Biblical  account  at  Pithom,^  and  interprets  the  Israel 
stele'  of  Meremptah  in  exact  accord  with  the  Bible 
story. 

Petrie,  in  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities,'^  opens  a  window 
that  lets  in  the  sunlight  upon  the  dark  period  of  the 
early  Hyksos  domination  and  bids  us  look  upon  the 
illumination  of  the  patriarchal  history  in  Egypt.  In 
his  Researches  in  Sinai,  bringing  to  light  the  strange 
commingling  of  Egyptian  and  Semitic  religions  charac- 
teristic of  that  borderland,  he  shows  the  existence  of  a 
genuine  natural  background  for  the  picture  of  a  well- 
developed  Semitic  religion  in  the  heart  of  the  Sinai 
peninsula  both  before  and  after  the  Exodus  period. 

Sayce,  in  his  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments, 
and  Hommel,  in  Patriarchal  Palestine,  enter  the  lists 
for  the  dominance  of  archaeology  in  criticism  with  a 
challenge  to  all  comers.  Hilprecht,  in  Explorations 
in  Bible  Lands,  and  Clay,  in  Light  on  the  Old  Testament 
from  Babel  SindAmurru  The  Home  of  the   Northern 


HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  SCRIPTURE  17 

Semites  make  large  contributions  toward  the  confir- 
mation of  the  Scripture  narrative,  but  do  not  enter 
so  directly  into  critical  controversies. 

On  the  other  hand,  Spiegelberg,  in  Aufenthalt  Israels 
in  Aegypten,  and  Steindorf,  in  Explorations  in  Bible 
Lands  (Hilprecht),  Jeremias,  in  Das  Alt  Testament  im 
Lichte  des  alien  Orients,^  Miiller,  in  Asien  und  Europa,^ 
and  Vincent,  in  Canaan  d'apres  VExploration  Recente, 
while  accepting  the  great  importance,  indeed  the  decid- 
ing character  of  archaeology  in  critical  questions,  do 
not  see  in  it  quite  so  dangerous  an  adversary  to  the 
prevailing  critical  theories. 

Taken  all  in  all,  and  especially  if  we  put  to  the  one 
side  the  archaeologists  who  may  be  indulged  in  setting 
forth  in  large  the  importance  of  their  own  science, 
archaeology  has  to  the  present  time  been  given  a  quite 
subordinate  place,  indeed  no  permanent  seat  at  all 
in  critical  councils,  but  has  only  been  called  in  for 
special  cases  when  able  to  give  some  very  important 
piece  of  evidence,  a  kind  of  critical  "special  providence," 
as  it  were,  *'a  very  present  help  in  time  of  trouble." 
But  these  "special  providences"  have  so  accumulated, 
the  induction  has  at  last  become  so  large,  that  the 
influence  of  archaeology  in  criticism  is  beginning  to  be 
manifest  not  as  a  special  providence  but  as  a  general 
providence,  not  an  incidental  element  in  critical  dis- 
cussions but  a  controlling  factor. 

The  FIRST   PART  OF   THE  FUNCTION  OF  ARCH.EOLOGY 

IN  CRITICISM,  as  thus  fully  brought  to  light  by  recent 
discovery  and  discussion,  is  to  supply  the  historical 

SETTING   OF   SCRIPTURE. 

Archaeology  furnishes  the  true  historical  setting  of 
Scripture,  and  nothing  else  does  so  or  can  do  so.    Specu- 


18  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

lations  in  a  scientist 's  study  some  thousands  of  miles 
from  the  scene  of  action  cannot  do  it.  Even  if  it  be 
granted  that  history  always  develops  according  to  the 
evolutionary  hypothesis,  still  the  task  is  hopeless,  for  the 
evolutionary  hypothesis  only  proposes  to  be  anatomical, 
to  furnish  the  bones  of  history,  while  local  conditions 
clothe  the  frame  with  flesh  and  give  it  a  countenance. 
Nor  can  traveling  and  present-day  observation  of 
manners  and  customs  supply  the  historical  setting  of 
Scripture,  any  more  than  abiding  at  home  by  the  stuff 
can  elucidate  the  folklore  of  one's  own  community. 
To  do  that  at  home  or  abroad  one  must  dig  below  the 
surface,  and  determine  the  relation  between  present 
customs  and  former  ones,  that  is  to  say,  become  an 
archoeologist. 

The  importance  of  exactly  so  doing  in  the  case  of 
Bible  history  in  order  to  supply  its  true  historical 
setting  can  hardly  be  overestimated.  In  art,  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  to  hang  a  picture  right  before 
criticism  begins.  Professor  Van  Dyke  of  Princeton 
has  pointed  out  that  the  pictures  of  the  Old  Masters 
are  misunderstood  and  often  unjustly  criticized.  They 
painted  their  pictures  for  particularplaces,  under  certain 
lights  and  shadows,  and  within  special  surrounding 
color  schemes:  but  in  modern  art  galleries  their  pic- 
tures are  hung  in  places  greatly  different  from  those 
for  which  they  were  intended,  with  entirely  different 
arrangement  of  lights  and  shadows,  and  within  color 
surroundings  little  less  than  destructive  to  the  painter's 
ideal.  The  thing  of  first  importance  is  to  hang  the 
picture  right  before  criticism  begins.^  Art  and  spirit- 
uality have  a  certain  correspondence,  not  so  much 
in  essence  as  in  the  conditions  necessary  for  apprecia- 


HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  SCRIPTURE  19 

tion.  The  patriarchs  and  prophets  and  psahnists  are 
the  Old  Masters  of  spirituaHty.  Their  productions 
were  for  certain  situations  in  hfe,  produced  under 
certain  social,  political,  moral,  and  religious  lights  and 
shadows  and  within  a  certain  surrounding  color  scheme 
of  influence,  enemies,  opportunities,  temptations,  and 
spiritual  privileges.  Now,  not  to  mention  the  homihsts 
of  all  ages,  the  critics  especially  and  very  flagrantly 
have  hung  the  pictures  of  these  Old  Masters  of  spirit- 
uality in  the  cloistered  seclusion  of  German  and  English 
and  American  professorial  study  chairs  and  lecture 
rooms,  under  the  lights  and  shadows  of  modern  extrava- 
gantly artificial  life,  surrounded  by  a  color  scheme  of 
materialistic  philosophy,  in  an  age  of  speculation,  under 
the  charm  of  subjectivity  and  the  license  of  defective 
logic.  The  result  is  the  radical  criticism  of  the  day. 
It  is  here  also  of  the  utmost  importance  to  hang 
the  picture  right  before  criticism  begins.  Put  these 
Old  Masters  in  their  intended  place,  under  the  soft 
lights  and  shadows  of  Oriental  life,  surrounded  by  that 
color  scheme  of  morals,  religion,  and  philosophy  for 
which  they  were  prepared,  and  criticism  may  take  on 
an  entirely  different  complexion.  It  is  only  archaeology 
which  supplies  or  can  supply  this  historical  setting. 
The  critic  who  ignores  archaeology  is  like  a  chemist  as 
curator  of  an  art  gallery,  able  to  analyze  everything 
into  its  constituent  elements  and  to  eliminate  every 
speck  of  impurity,  but  who,  if  he  does  so,  at  the  same 
time  also  destroys  all  the  pictures. 


CHAPTER  III 

Guidance  to  the  Methods  of  Criticism 

A  SECOND  part  of  THE  FUNCTION  OF  ARCHEOLOGY 
IN    CRITICISM    IS    TO    GIVE    GUIDANCE    TO    ITS    METHODS. 

Certainly  criticism  ought  to  make  use  of  all  the  guidance 
available,  since  it  is  a  fundamental  assumption  of 
every  distinct  school  of  criticism,  repudiating  as  it 
must,  in  order  to  be  distinct,  the  work  of  every  other 
school,  that  it  surveys  a  vague  and  trackless  territory. 
Now  archaeology  is  to  Biblical  criticism,  in  this  its 
self-appointed  task,  what  ancient  geographers  and 
travelers  are  to  studies  in  classical  history  and  litera- 
ture, and  much  more  as  its  scope  is  much  broader. 
Archaeology,  it  is  true,  is  not  complete  in  all  its  details, 
and  neither  is  the  work  of  the  ancient  geographers  and 
travelers,  but  it  gives  a  general  guidance  to  methods 
of  research  as  they  do  to  classical  studies. 

I.    CONCERNING  PRESUPPOSITIONS 

Archaeology  gives  this  guidance  concerning  the  pre- 
suppositions of  criticism.  He  who  prates  about  an 
unbiased  mind  and  warns  against  every  one  who  has 
any  opinions — especially  opinions  which  have  been 
formulated  and  given  out  in  such  way  that  the  world 
may  call  them  a  creed — as  incapable  of  making  trust- 
worthy investigations,  writes  himself  down  a  suspicious 
character  and  sets  every  person  with  a  proper  amount 
of  caution  on  the  watch  against  him  for  some  especially 

20 


GUIDANCE  CONCERNING  CANONS  OF  CEITICISM      21 

exaggerated  form  of  mental  strabismus.  For  presup- 
positions are  inevitable  from  our  mental  constitution, 
which  will  not  allow  us  to  consider  anything  in  isola- 
tion, but  always  in  relation  to  other  things,  and  so 
compels  us  in  our  processes  of  thought  always  to  proceed 
from  one  thing  to  another.  So,  all  thinking  being 
thus  interrelated,  presuppositions  are  necessary  to  the 
consideration  of  any  subject,  since  all  subjects  cannot 
be  considered  at  once. 

Presuppositions,  and  many  of  them,  all  critics  of 
every  school  have.  All  that  can  be  done  in  the  matter 
is  to  take  care  that  the  presuppositions  be  correct. 
But  our  presuppositions  are  naturally,  to  a  very  large 
extent,  those  induced  by  our  experience  and  environ- 
ment until  we  are  otherwise  instructed.  As  only 
archseology  is  able  to  instruct  us  concerning  the  exact 
circumstances  of  that  portion  of  the  Word  which  may 
at  any  time  be  under  discussion,  it  is  evident  that 
without  the  instruction  which  archseology  gives  we 
cannot  be  assured  of  correct  presuppositions  in  the 
critic.  It  is  indisputable  that  archaeologists  tend  to 
closer  and  closer  agreement  in  criticism,  just  as  resi- 
dents differ  less  concerning  local  customs  and  influences 
than  do  foreigners  who  write  so  confidently  about 
them.  The  thorough  archaeologist  becomes  a  resident 
of  antiquity,  while  all  other  critics  are  foreigners. 

II.    CONCERNING  THE  CANONS  OF  CRITICISM 

Archaeology  gives  guidance  also  concerning  the  canons 
of  criticism.  The  canons  of  criticism  of  any  literature 
must  be  learned  from  the  literature  of  the  same  age 
and,   as  nearly  as  possible,  of  the  same  people.     It 


22  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

seems  almost  incredible  that  in  this  literary  age,  the 
most  prolific  and  certainly  not  the  least  critical  in 
the  whole  course  of  human  history,  it  should  be  neces- 
sary to  point  out  this  common-sense  principle.  Yet 
the  failure  to  take  proper  account  of  it  is  the  astonish- 
ing, yet  well-sustained,  indictment  brought  by  Eerd- 
mans  in  his  arraignment  of  the  whole  course  of  Old 
Testament  criticism  in  Germany. 

The  extensive  literary  remains  of  Egypt  and  Baby- 
lonia reveal  literary  methods  and  standards  very  different 
from  each  other  and  still  more  different  from  those  of 
modern  Western  literature,  but  exhibiting  to  a  marked 
degree  the  literary  peculiarities  of  the  Old  Testament. 
In  Babylonian  literature  much  attention  is  paid  to 
epochal  chronology,  in  Egyptian  literature  compara- 
tively little  attention  is  given  to  chronology  at  all, 
and  what  chronology  there  is  is  seldom  epochal,  but 
is  either  sjrnchronistic  or  merely  annalistic;  while  in 
the  Old  Testament,  there  is  a  mingling  of  all  these 
kinds  of  chronology,  as  Palestine  was  ever  from  her 
earliest  history  a  field  where  Babylonian  and  Egyptian 
thoughts  and  customs  commingled  with  those  indige- 
nous to  Palestine  and  Syria. 

Again,  in  Babylonian  Uterature  there  are  carefulness 
and  some  good  degree  of  accuracy;  in  Egyptian  litera- 
ture carelessness,  slovenliness  and  inaccuracy  are  pro- 
vokingly  frequent.  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are,  indeed,  in  these  respects,  in  striking  contrast 
with  these  other  Uteratures.  There  is  a  more  rigid 
conscientiousness  in  writing  and  in  copying  and  in  the 
pruning  away  of  the  boastful  hyperbole  of  the  Orient, 
to  call  it  by  no  harsher  name.  Yet  nowhere  in  ancient 
Oriental  literature,  either  in  the  Bible  or  out  of  it,  is 


GUIDANCE    CONCEKNING    LITERARY    FORM  23 

there  the  mathematical  rigidity  of  statement  demanded 
by  Occidental  literature  of  today;  while  there  is  fre- 
quently brevity  of  statement  and  abruptness  of  literary 
method  which  to  Western  minds,  under  the  influence 
of  Western  literary  canons,  appear  to  be  fragmentariness 
of  documents. 

It  would  be  foolish  and  disastrous  to  judge  Western 
literature  by  these  Oriental  peculiarities — to  compare 
Guyot  with  Strabo;  Macaulay  with  Herodotus;  Hum- 
boldt with  Berosus;  Tennyson's  "Charge  of  the  Light 
Brigade"  with  Pentaur's  heroic  account  of  Rameses' 
charge  against  the  Hittite  host;  or  Faber's  "Hymns" 
with  the  "Songs  of  Solomon."  Equally  unscientific  and 
disastrous,  may  we  not  say  absurd,  has  been  the  effort 
to  judge  Oriental  writings  by  Western  standards. 

III.     CONCERNING    THE    VALUE    AND    INFLUENCE    OF 
LITERARY   FORM 

Archaeology  gives  guidance  to  criticism  in  estimating 
the  value  and  influence  of  the  literary  form  in  which 
ancient  documents  and  other  literary  remains  have 
come  down  to  us.  As  already  intimated,  there  is  often 
an  apparent  fragmentariness  and  lack  of  unity  in  ancient 
literary  remains.  A  collection  of  even  well-preserved 
papyri  presents  the  appearance  of  scraps.  A  group 
of  cuneiform  tablets,  however  regular  they  may  be  in 
size  and  shape  and  form,  has  yet  an  appearance  of 
physical  separateness,  in  its  parts,  which  is  suggestive 
of  fragmentariness.  This  characteristic  of  ancient 
literature  exerts  an  insidious  influence  upon  a  modern 
student  against  which  it  is  not  easy  to  contend  success- 
fully, and  the  more  so  that  some  do  not  seem  even  to 
be  aware  of  it. 


24  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

We  can  the  better  understand  the  problem  when  we 
stop  to  consider  how  much  of  the  so  apparent  definite- 
ness  and  unity  of  modern  hterature  is  due,  and  still 
more  our  perception  of  it  is  due,  to  the  very  modern 
arts  of  printing  and  bookbinding.  How  very  different 
was  the  ''copy"  for  this  same  modern  literature  when 
it  came  into  the  hands  of  the  printer:  and  before  the 
days  of  the  typewriter,  the  condition  of  the  ''copy" 
was  still  worse.  But  even  the  best  and  neatest  manu- 
script, prepared  as  it  is  on  separate  sheets,  presents 
no  such  appearance  of  unity  and  integrity  and  makes 
no  such  impression  of  clearness  and  definiteness  as  the 
same  production  when  it  comes  from  the  modern  print- 
ing establishment.  What  with  beautiful  title-page  and 
headings,  with  chapters,  paragraphs,  and  numbered 
sections,  to  say  nothing  of  punctuation  marks,  of 
which  the  ancients  knew  almost  nothing,  what  with 
half-tone  cuts,  side  notes  and  foot  notes,  indexes  and 
appendices,  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  one-half 
of  the  literary  cogency  of  many  books  is  supplied  thus 
by  the  publisher.  How  many  books  in  their  original 
manuscript  form  could  never  get  anybody  to  read 
them  except  the  author  and  the  printer! 

Now,  accustomed,  as  we  are,  to  receive  all  our  litera- 
ture in  the  most  attractive,  alluring,  and  helpful  form 
in  which  modern  books  are  presented  to  us,  when  we 
turn  to  examine  a  literature  lacking  the  assistance  of 
the  art  of  the  printer  and  the  bookbinder,  we  find  it 
very  difficult  to  allow  properly  for  the  difference;  indeed, 
very  few  critics  succeed  in  doing  so,  but  attack  this 
appearance  of  indefiniteness  and  fragmentariness,  or 
scent  at  once  indications  of  a  compilation  by  some 
clumsy  redactor.    Even  when  ancient  literature  is  given 


GUIDANCE  CONCERNING  LITERARY  FORM  25 

a  modern  publication,  these  misleading  appearances 
still  largely  remain,  for  it  was  not  prepared  for  such 
publication,  but  for  the  ancient  form,  and  a  literal 
presentation  of  it  retains  most  of  its  characteristics. 

But  archaeology  makes  very  plain  the  meaning  of 
all  these  peculiarities  in  form  in  ancient  Oriental  liter- 
atures and  the  causes  of  them.  The  antiquarian  collects 
fragments  of  tablets  and  painstakingly  fits  them  to- 
gether, gathers  out  of  the  rubbish  heaps  of  the  ruins 
of  a  millennium  the  disheveled  parts  of  papyrus  or 
parchment  and  pieces  together  the  torn  and  scattered 
fragments,  or  even  finds  a  carefully  preserved  library, 
which  yet  is  made  up  of  what  is  to  us,  of  modern  days, 
only  a  collection  of  loose  leaves,  without  chapters, 
with  little  or  no  punctuation,  without  paragraphing 
or  numbering  of  pages,  without  indexes  or  appendices, 
without  the  title  of  the  manuscript  at  the  beginning 
or  the  name  of  the  author  at  the  end.  Thus  the  archae- 
ologist realizes  at  once  how  much  the  absence  of  the 
modern  literary  helps  in  form  contributes  to  the  appear- 
ance of  fragmentariness,  and  how  much  the  critic 
needs  to  perceive  the  same  and  to  take  account  of  it 
and  to  allow  sufficiently  for  it,  if  he  is  to  be  a  trust- 
worthy critic. 

So  archaeology  makes  very  clear  that  apparent  frag- 
mentariness and  indefiniteness  in  Oriental  literature, 
either  profane  or  sacred,  in  so  far  as  it  arises  from 
literary  form,  or  the  absence  of  literary  form,  and  not 
from  partial  destruction  of  documents,  in  no  wise 
militates  against  its  integrity. 


26  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

IV.    CONCERNING     THE      INTERPEETATION     OF     ANCIENT 
LITERATURE 

Still  again  archseology  gives  guidance  to  the  methods 
of  criticism  concerning  the  interpretation  of  ancient  Uter- 
ature. 

Archaeology  must  needs  remind  us,  and  often,  of 
the  truism,  so  much  overlooked,  that  a  language  and 
literature  means  only  what  it  is  understood  to  mean 
by  those  from  whom  it  comes.  No  one  will  permit 
even  the  wisest  man  in  the  world  to  force  upon  his 
words  a  meaning  other  than  he  intended.  Even  judges 
of  the  courts,  who  are  the  greatest  sticklers  for  the 
force  of  phraseology,  yet  permit  historical  inquiry  as 
to  the  exact  intent  of  the  framers  of  a  law.  It  is  to 
the  credit  of  this  age  that  we  account  ridiculous  the 
practice  of  a  certain  class  of  homihsts  of  a  half-century 
ago,  who  took  up  their  hearers'  time  with  the  presen- 
tation of  all  possible  interpretations  of  a  passage  of 
Scripture;  yet  we  have  not  gotten  beyond  the  pugilistic 
method  of  trying  to  thrust  down  the  throat  of  an 
opponent  in  political  or  theological  or  critical  contro- 
versy some  meaning  of  his  words  which  it  is  possible 
to  extract  from  them  or  impose  upon  them  but  which 
he  vehemently  repudiates :  and  it  passes  comprehension 
that  this  critical  age  should  yet  tolerate  in  Biblical 
criticism  almost  without  protest  the  etyraological,  the 
analytical,  and  especially  the  speculative  method  of 
interpretation,  that  devises  a  theory  and  constructs 
and  reconstructs  an  interpretation  in  accordance  with 
the  same  and  insists  that  this  interpretation  is  what 
the  author  must  mean  to  say. 


GUIDANCE  CONCERNING  INTERPRETATION  27 

Against  this  all  but  universal  method  of  present-day- 
criticism,  one  voice  is  vehemently  raised,  the  voice  of 
archaeology.  The  primary  and  essential  characteristic 
of  this  science  cries  out  against  such  a  method.  Archae- 
ology seeks  to  find  out  things  as  they  were  and  not 
as  they  ought  to  have  been  according  to  any  theory.  It  is 
for  this  reason  that  archaeologists,  as  such,  almost  with 
one  consent  look  askance  at  criticism  as  vague  and 
not  above  suspicion.  The  etymological,  analytical, 
and  speculative  methods  of  criticism  are  helpful,  they 
afford  means  and  supply  implements,  but  in  order  to 
be  reliable,  they  must  have  the  support  of  the  historical 
method,  which,  in  the  case  of  Biblical  criticism,  is 
archaeology.  In  the  absence  of  this  support,  and  more 
especially  if  contemporary  history,  as  revealed  by  ar- 
chaeology, be  antagonistic,  interpretation,  though  sup- 
ported by  all  the  other  methods  of  criticism,  is  exceed- 
ingly precarious. 

The  interpretation  of  a  rubric  by  the  etymological, 
analytical,  and  speculative  methods  of  criticism  may 
be  completely  overthown  by  a  single  picture  or  a 
brief  description  of  the  priest  at  the  altar  or  especially 
by  the  discovery  of  an  ancient  place  of  worship.  It 
was  formerly  assumed  without  question  that  Egj^t  with 
her  many  great  altars  and  her  multitude  of  great  sacri- 
fices had  a  system  of  great  holocausts,  but  the  discovery 
of  the  alabaster  altar  of  the  Vth  dynasty  at  Abu  Gurab, 
the  beautiful  granite  altar  of  Usertsen  II  at  Lisht, 
and  the  artistic  white  limestone  altar  of  Hatasu  of  the 
XVIIIth  djmasty  at  Deir  el-Bahri  with  not  a  trace  of 
fire  upon  any  of  them  or  the  sHghtest  evidence  of 
wear  that  would  indicate  that  they  had  ever  been 
used  for  burnt  offering  makes  the  assumption  of  the 
great  holocaust  as  a  regular  part  of  ancient  Egyptian 
worship  an  exceedingly  improbable  one. 


28  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  Bible  abounds  in  allusions  to  the  high  places  and 
the  worship  conducted  at  them.  ^'Ye  shall  utterly 
destroy  all  the  places,  wherein  the  nations  which  ye 
shall  possess  served  their  gods,  upon  the  high  mountains, 
and  upon  the  hills,  and  under  every  green  tree:  and 
ye  shall  overthrow  their  altars,  and  break  down  their 
pillars,  and  burn  their  groves  with  fire  and  ye  shall 
hew  down  the  graven  images  of  their  gods,  and  destroy 
the  names  of  them  out  of  that  place. "^  "And  he  made 
an  house  of  high  places,  and  made  priests  of  the  lowest 
of  the  people,  which  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi."^ 
"The  Lord  said  also  unto  me  in  the  days  of  Josiah 
the  king.  Hast  thou  seen  that  which  back-sliding 
Israel  hath  done?  She  is  gone  up  upon  every  high 
mountain  and  under  every  green  tree,  and  there  hath 
played  the  harlot."'  Until  very  recently,  commen- 
tators have  had  little  recourse  but  to  get  what  they 
could  from  Hebrew  etymology  and  make  as  much  as 
possible  out  of  speculations  concerning  the  character 
of  the  ''groves"  and  the  nature  of  the  religious  orgies 
held  at  the  high  places.  It  is  now  not  a  little  disquietmg 
to  compare  their  well-meant  explanations  with  the 
picture  of  worship  at  an  ancient  Semitic  high  place 
found  by  de  Morgan  at  Susa,^  or  the  ruins  of  an  actual 
high  place  found  at  Gezer  by  Macalister,^  or  the  well- 
preserved  high  place  at  Petra  discovered  by  Robinson.* 

The  ancients  have  a  right  to  their  own  interpretation 
of  what  they  said  and  archaeology  must  guide  to  that 
interpretation.  It  is  the  great  commentary  on  ancient 
literature,  whether  that  which  has  just  been  dug  up, 
as  the  recent  finds  of  manuscripts  and  monuments,  or 
that  which  has  never  been  lost,  as  the  Bible  itself. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Archaeological  Facts  with  Which  to  Test  Critical 

Theories 

In  the  discussion  of  the  function  of  archaeology  in 
criticism,  of  which  two  parts,  the  historical  setting 
and  the  guidance  of  methods,  have  been  discussed  in 
preceding  chapters,  we  come  now  to  the  third  and  last 
and  in  all  respects  the  most  important  part  which 
IS  TO  provide  facts  with  which  to  test  critical 

THEORIES. 

Archaeology  supplies  facts  with  which  to  test  the 
theories  of  criticism.  The  simple  statement  of  this 
part  of  the  function  of  archaeology  in  criticism  makes 
instantly  apparent  its  far-reaching  importance.  The 
other  parts  of  the  function  of  archaeology  in  criticism 
which  have  already  been  mentioned,  the  furnishing  of 
the  true  historical  setting,  and  the  guidance  of  methods 
concerning  presuppositions,  canons,  literary  form,  and 
interpretation,  are  but  preliminary  and  contributory, 
the  function  of  service:  but  the  supplying  of  facts  with 
which  to  test  theories  is  final  and  dominant,  the  func- 
tion of  control.  Wherever  archaeology  has  something 
definite  to  say,  it  claims  the  right  to  the  last  word. 
If  it,  as  yet,  only  "bids  fair  to  control  criticism,"  it 
boldly  claims  its  right  to  control  it  now.  Here  is  heard 
the  deciding  voice  of  the  monuments  in  Biblical  criti- 
cism. 


29 


30  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Let  us  see  upon  how  good  ground  archaeology  makes 
this  claim.  It  will  be  admitted — it  is  admitted — that 
there  can  be  no  real  antagonism  between  the  facts  of 
archaeology  and  a  correct  criticism  of  trustworthy  docu- 
ments. This  is  not  to  say  that  there  can  be  no  antago- 
nism between  facts  and  truth  in  its  broadest  sense. 
There  may  be  many  things  done,  i.e.,  facts,  which  are 
against  the  truth.  All  the  existence  of  evil  in  the 
world  attests  that.  But  there  can  be  no  antagonism 
between  facts  and  truth  in  the  same  field  of  thought, 
between  the  facts  and  the  truth  concerning  the  facts. 
There  may  be  the  most  positive  antagonism  between 
moral  truth  and  human  conduct,  but  there  can  be  no 
antagonism  between  the  truth  about  the  conduct  of 
a  certain  person  and  the  facts  of  his  conduct;  or  between 
the  truth  about  many  persons,  i.e.,  history  and  the 
facts  of  history;  or  between  the  truth  about  many 
statements  of  human  thought  and  all  the  circumstances 
of  those  statements,  i.e.,  literary  criticism,  and  the 
material  facts  concerning  the  records,  i.e.,  archaeology. 
Critics  and  archaeologists  seem  to  agree  perfectly  in 
the  statement  that  there  can  be  no  antagonism  between 
a  correct  literary  criticism  of  trustworthy  documents 
and  the  facts  of  archaeology.  But  it  is,  after  all,  a 
very  ambiguous  agreement,  for  archaeologists  mean, 
''You  are  certain  in  the  end  to  come  around  to  our 
way  of  thinking,"  and  the  critics  mean,  ^'You  are 
certain  in  the  end,  when  you  get  all  the  pieces  put 
together,  to  reach  the  same  conclusions  that  we  have 
anticipated."  Who  or  where  is  the  umpire?  Who  or 
what  is  to  determine  when  the  criticism  is  "a  correct 
criticism?"    When  there  is  conflict  between  the  facts 


NO  THEORY  ACCEPTED  UNTIL  TESTED  BY  FACTS       31 

of  archaeology  and  the  conclusions  of  criticism,  which 
is  to  give  way? 

To  ask  this  question  is  to  answer  it.  Theory  must 
always  give  way  to  fact.  In  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes, facts  are  final.  Even  so  staunch  a  defender  of 
the  rights  and  function  of  criticism  as  Dr.  Driver, 
recognizes  this  principle,  at  least  in  theory.  For  he 
says:  "Where  the  testimony  of  archaeology  is  direct, 
it  is  of  the  highest  possible  value,  and,  as  a  rule,  deter- 
mines the  question  decisively:  even  where  it  is  indirect, 
if  it  is  sufficiently  circumstantial  and  precise,  it  makes 
a  settlement  highly  probable."^ 

This  prerogative  of  archaeological  facts  in  the  test- 
ing of  critical  theories,  is  evidently  far-reaching  in  its 
powers  and  must  of  necessity  be  given  wide  and  positive 
recognition.  It  is  now  to  be  scrutinized  with  the  utmost 
care. 

The  several  rules,  or  canons,  of  this  criticism  of 
criticism  are  inseparably  linked  together. 

I.    NO  THEORY  TO  BE  ACCEPTED  UNTIL  TESTED  BY  FACTS 

No  theory  is  to  be  finally  accepted  and  made  appli- 
cable to  one's  faith  and  life  until  it  is  tested  and  attested 
by  facts.  If  it  is  in  the  field  of  experience,  by  facts  of 
experience.  If  in  the  field  of  history,  by  the  facts  of 
history.  And  the  Master  commends  even  revelation 
to  this  test  when  He  says:  ''If  any  man  willeth  to  do 
His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of 
God  or  whether  I  speak  from  myseK. " 

Anything  in  the  Bible  may  be  discredited  by  theory. 
Everything  in  heaven  and  earth  may  be,  indeed  has 
been,  discredited  by  theory.     More,  there  can  be  no 


32  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

accepted  realities  in  all  the  universe  of  existence, 
phenomena,  and  experience,  if  theory  is  allowed  to 
stand  unsupported  by  fact,  permitted,  undisputed,  to 
dominate  the  intellect  and  faith  of  a  man  and  so  ulti- 
mately to  direct  his  Hfe.  One  might  as  safely  abandon 
the  beaten  track  for  the  most  alluring  but  unconfirmed 
appearance  upon  the  horizon  of  the  Eastern  desert,  as 
turn  one's  life  aside  to  a  theory  unattested  by  facts: 
however  perfect  the  appearance,  it  may  after  all  be 
only  the  mirage  and  the  disappointed  pilgrim  may  never 
again  get  back  to  the  safe  road.  Let  theory  first  be 
confirmed  by  fact,  then  it  may  be  received  into  the  life. 

II.      NO    THEORY    CORRECT    SIMPLY    BECAUSE    IT   WORKS 

But  a  theory  which  meets  all  the  known  conditions  of 
the  case  in  hand  is  not  by  that  fact  proved  to  be  true, 
and  therefore  to  be  received  into  the  life.  And  the  most 
alluring  danger  to  which  criticism  is  sub  j  ect  is  the  assump- 
tion of  the  contrary  opinion,  namely,  that  a  theory 
which  meets  all  the  known  conditions  of  the  case  in 
hand  is  by  that  fact  proved  to  be  true.  This  is  not  the 
case.  Such  a  theory  must,  in  addition,  be  corroborated 
by  independent  evidence,  either  the  bringing  to  light 
of  the  expected  facts  or  demonstration  of  the  power  of 
the  theory  to  unlock  mysteries.  And  even  if  mysteries 
be  unlocked,  the  theory  is  not  necessarily  an  entirely 
correct  theory.  The  key  that  turns  the  lock  must  be 
something  like  the  key  that  belongs  to  it,  but  may, 
after  all,  be  a  false  key.  There  must  be,  in  any  case, 
whether  of  mysteries  unlocked  or  of  facts  brought  to 
light,  independent,  genuine  evidence  in  addition  to  the 
adaptability  of  the  theory  to  all  the  known  conditions 


NO  THEORY  CORRECT  SIMPLY  BECAUSE  IT  WORKS      33 

of  the  case  in  hand.  Furthermore,  a  theory  must  not 
only  be  able  to  meet  the  test  of  some  additional  facts 
but  the  test  of  all  the  conditions  imposed  by  any  addi- 
tional facts  brought  to  light,  and  be  able,  also,  to  incor- 
porate these  new  facts  as  naturally  as  those  upon  which 
the  theory  was  originally  constructed.  This  is  the 
final  and  conclusive  test,  without  meeting  which  no 
theory  is  to  be  received  into  the  life. 

That  a  theory  which  meets  all  the  conditions  of  the 
case  in  hand  is  by  that  fact  proved  to  be  true  Js  a 
mathematical  dictum.  Mathematics  belongs  to  the 
domain  of  pure,  absolute,  and  universal  truth  and  there 
this  dictum  holds  good.  A  theory  which  meets  all  the 
conditions  of  the  case  there  furnishes  one  solution  of  the 
problem  in  hand,  of  which  there  may  be  other,  some- 
times several,  correct  solutions.  But  mathematical 
dicta  are  not  always  true  in  life  and  literature  and  espe- 
cially not  in  history,  which  in  its  unwritten  form  is  but 
the  complex  of  life  and  in  its  written  form  the  union  of 
life  with  literature.  Life,  literature,  and  history  do  not 
lie  within  the  domain  of  universal  truth,  the  domain 
of  all  possiblities,  but  in  the  realm  of  actualities,  and  all 
possibilities  have  not  become  actualities.  Indeed, 
most  things  have  never  been  done. 

For  in  life,  literature,  and  history  there  enters  a  new 
and  most  potent  element,  human  volition,  which  chooses 
among  all  the  possibilities  one  only  in  each  case  to 
become  the  actuality  in  the  event.  So  that  here  there 
are  not  several  possible  solutions  of  the  problem  of  the 
event,  but  one  only  and  that  the  right  one.  All  other 
proposed  solutions  are  false,  however  well  they  provide 
for  the  event,  and  even  if  they  provide  for  it  better 
than  the  real  solution  of  the  problem,  for  people  do  not 


34  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

always  do  things  in  the  best  or  even  the  easiest  way. 
The  problem,  indeed,  in  life,  literature,  and  history  is 
not  to  determine  possibiUties,  but  an  actuahty,  not  one 
or  several  of  the  ways  in  which  an  event  might  have 
taken  place,  nor  even  the  way  in  which  it  might  best 
have  taken  place,  but  the  way  in  which  it  did  take  place. 

A  theory  which  meets  all  the  conditions  of  the  case  in 
hand  may  be  one  of  the  several  ways  in  which  the  event 
might  have  taken  place,  and  yet  it  may  be  that  it  did 
not  take  place  in  that  way  at  all ;  and  only  by  indepen- 
dent, genuine  corroborative  evidence  is  any  theory  to 
be  attested  as  the  way  in  which  the  event  actually  did 
take  place. 

1.  That  this  statement  of  the  case  is  correct  in  the 
experiences  of  life,  we  have  abundant  evidence  in  the 
proceedings  of  courts  of  law.  Here  judge  and  jury  are 
not  interested  in  discovering  the  many  ways  in  which 
an  event  may  have  taken  place  or  the  many  persons  who 
may  have  done  a  deed,  but  only  the  one  way  in  which 
it  was  done  and  the  person  who  did  it.  It  is  the  many 
possibilities  that  never  became  actuahtiesthat  constitute 
the  whole  field  for  detective  work,  and  occasion  most 
of  the  labors  of  judge  and  jury.  If  there  were  only  one 
way  for  an  event  to  take  place;  i.  e.,  if  every  theory 
which  meets  the  conditions  of  the  case  in  hand  were  the 
correct  theory,  there  would  be  nothing  for  detectives 
to  do  and  the  function  of  courts  would  be  declarative, 
whereas  in  reality  the  chief  function  of  the  courts  is  to 
determine  that  one  possibiUty  which  became  the  actual- 
ity in  the  case.  But  the  "most  painstaking  procedure 
does  not  wholly  prevent  false  convictions.  The  prose- 
cutor presents  a  theory  of  the  commission  of  a  crime, 
which  meets  all  the  conditions  of  the  case,  as  made  out 


NO  THEORY  CORRECT  SIMPLY  BECAUSE  IT  WORKS      35 

by  the  evidence  in  his  possession,  convinces  twelve 
jurymen,  and  secures  a  conviction.  Yet  sometimes 
afterward  it  is  found  out  that  another  person  committed 
the  crime  in  an  entirely  different  way.  A  recent  case, 
which  interested  two  continents,  is  that  of  Andrew 
Toth,  who  has  been  released  from  the  Western  Peniten- 
tiary, of  Pennsylvania,  after  serving  twenty  years  on  a 
life  sentence  for  murder;  his  release  being  brought  about 
by  the  death-bed  confession  of  a  man  in  Austria. 

2.  That  the  mathematical  dictum  under  considera- 
tion is  inapplicable  to  literature  is  equally  well  estab- 
lished. Sir  Peter  le  Page  Renouf  argued  with  great 
acuteness  and  force  that  it  is  possible  to  assign  signi- 
fications to  an  unknown  script,  give  meanings  to  the 
words  thus  formed,  construct  a  grammar,  and  translate 
inscriptions  as  historical  statements  and  make  good 
sense,  though  not  a  single  sign  or  word  or  construction 
or  thought  be  correct.^  He  says,  indeed:  ''It  is  not 
difficult  to  make  out  the  Ten  Commandments,  the 
Psalms  of  David,  the  Homeric  poems,  or  the  Irish 
melodies,  on  any  ancient  or  modern  monument  what- 
ever, and  in  any  language  you  please."  Not  that  it  is 
not  possible  to  avoid  this,  but  that  it  is  possible  to  do 
it,  if  the  proper  precautions  are  not  taken. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  truth  of  this  contention  in  the 
case  of  unknown  numerals.  A  dozen  persons  may  each 
assign  values  to  such  numerals  and,  with  such  assigned 
values,  may  add,  subtract,  multiply,  and  divide  cor- 
rectly in  method,  though  not  a  single  assignment  of  value 
be  correct  and  the  assignments  of  no  two  of  the  dozen 
be  alike.  This  danger,  so  apparent  in  the  case  of  numer- 
als, which  are,  in  fact,  word  signs,  is  always  present  and 
to  be  reckoned  with  in  the  decipherment  and  interpreta- 


36  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

tion  of  hieroglyphic  writings.  Actual  examples  of  the 
fulfillment  of  Renouf's  warning  thesis  are  not  wanting 
in  the  history  of  the  decipherment  of  unknown  tongues. 
The  grotesque,  yet  confident,  efforts  at  the  decipher- 
ment of  the  Egj^tian  hieroglyphs  before  the  discovery 
of  the  Rosetta  stone  which  supplied  the  true  key  are 
not  forgotten.  Indeed,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  they  will 
always  be  remembered  to  stimulate  caution  in  future 
decipherers  of  unknown  tongues. 

Budge  says:  "In  more  modern  times,  the  first  writer, 
at  any  length,  on  hieroglyphs  was  Athanasius  Kircher, 
the  author  of  some  ponderous  works  in  which  he  pre- 
tended to  have  found  the  key  to  the  hieroglyphic 
inscriptions  and  to  translate  them.  Though  a  man  of 
great  learning,  it  must  be  said  that,  judged  by  scholars 
of  today,  he  would  be  considered  an  impostor."^ 
Joseph  de  Guines  (1770)  maintained  that  China  was 
settled  by  Egyptians  and  the  Chinese  characters  only 
degenerate  Egj^ptian  hieroglyphs. ^ 

Similar  failures  in  the  attempt  to  decipher  the  Hittite 
hieroglj^hs  and  translate  the  Hittite  inscriptions  must 
form  painful  recollections  to  some  distinguished  scholars 
yet  living,  whose  efforts,  extending  in  some  cases  not 
only  to  lists  of  signs,  but  to  syllabaries,  vocabularies, 
granimars,  and  translations,  are  now,  in  part,  and  in 
some  cases,  in  toto,  rejected  by  the  whole  learned  world. 
However  successful  present  or  future  efforts  of  these 
distinguished  scholars  may  prove  to  be,  they  have,  in 
part  at  least,  themselves  repudiated  their  former  work. 

It  must  be  admitted,  of  course,  that  a  hieroglyphic 
literature  presents  the  most  and  the  greatest  difficulties 
of  interpretation,  and  most  surely  presents  them,  and 
there   these   dangers   of   fatal   mistake   are   greatest. 


NO  THEORY  CORRECT  SIMPLY  BECAUSE  IT  WORKS      37 

But  another  fact  is  not  easily  recognized,  is,  indeed, 
too  often  overlooked  altogether;  this,  namely,  that  a 
language  not  hieroglyphic  and  a  literature  in  a  known 
tongue  presents  difficulties  which  differ  from  these  men- 
tioned only  in  degree  and  in  the  form  of  embodiment 
and  not  at  all  in  the  essential  quality  of  the  danger 
involved.  Since  a  literature  means  only  what  it  was 
intended  to  mean  by  those  from  whom  it  comes,  what- 
ever it  may  be  that  in  any  degree  obscures  that  inten- 
tion, whether  method  of  writing,  peculiarities  of  expres- 
sion, or  references  to  topography,  history  and  manners 
and  customs,  it  always  presents  that  one  and  the  same 
problem  which  the  element  of  human  vohtion  interjects, 
the  problem  of  determining  which  of  all  possible  mean- 
ings was  chosen  as  the  intention  of  the  author.  So  that, 
in  any  case,  the  historical  method,  and  only  the  histori- 
cal method,  can  speak  the  last  word  in  criticism.  But 
the  historical  method  in  all  ancient  literature,  whether 
sacred  or  profane,  becomes  the  archaeological  method. 

The  most  plausible  theory  of  a  literature,  though  it 
seem  to  embrace  every  detail  and  meet  every  condition 
imposed,  even  though  it  actually  does  so,  may  after  all 
be  found  to  be,  as  in  one  or  two  attempts  at  the  decipher- 
ment of  the  Hittite  inscriptions,  wholly  false  when  tested 
by  the  facts  of  contemporary  history  and  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  comparative  philology,  which  are  themselves 
but  some  of  the  universal  facts  of  human  experience. 

3.  Now  the  dangers  of  unconfirmed  theory  in  life  and 
in  literature  are  added  together  in  history,  which,  in 
its  final  form,  is  but  life  written  down,  human  experi- 
ence given  over  to  all  the  infinitely  varied  convention- 
alities of  literature.  Here  it  is  doubly  important  that  no 
theory  be  given  final  acceptance  and  made  a  part  of  one's 


38  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

mental  furniture  and  allowed  to  influence  one's  attitude 
and  conduct  in  life,  until  it  is  tested  and  attested  by 
facts.  Surely  the  warnings  of  the  study  of  Egyptian 
and  classical  history  and  hterature  are  not  to  be  dis- 
regarded. Menes  and  other  early  kings  of  Egypt  were 
declared  by  criticism  to  be  mere  mythological  charac- 
ters; Minos  of  Crete  was  relegated  to  the  same  limbo; 
and  the  stories  of  Troy  and  her  heroes  were  said  to 
belong  to  ''cloudland."  How  recently  was  all  this 
included  in  the  universal  opinion  of  criticism.  And 
what  generations,  even  centuries  of  learned  critical 
scrutiny  lay  back  of  this  opinion  in  justification  of  it! 
Has  the  label,  ''myth,"  which  criticism  has  fastened  to 
anything  in  sacred  or  classical  story,  more  or  better 
critical  argument  to  support  it  than  had  the  opinion 
that  these  kings  and  heroes  were  only  the  creatures  of  a 
romancing  fancy?  Yet  the  spade  of  Petrie^  at  Abydos, 
of  Evans^  at  Knossos,  and  of  Schlieman^  at  Troy  has 
revealed  the  ''cloudland"  as  soUd  earth  and  shown  the 
ghostly  heroes  to  have  been  substantial  men  of  flesh 
and  blood. 

If  we  are  to  learn  anything  from  experience,  if  reason 
has  anything  to  do  with  human  guidance,  then  certainly 
no  theory  of  either  sacred  or  profane  history  of  ancient 
times  is  to  be  finally  accepted  as  correct  until  tested  and 
attested  by  facts.  If  human  intellect  is  not  to  hold  the 
pilot  wheel  at  the  passing  of  these  little  known  and  dan- 
gerous straits,  then  we  may  well  ask.  When  is  it  ever 
to  guide  thought  and  investigation? 


NEW  FACTS  39 

III.      ONLY  ARCHEOLOGY  IS  BRINGING  FORTH  ANY  NEW 
FACTS  ON  THE  QUESTIONS  RAISED  BY  CRITICISM 

But  whence  are  to  come  the  facts  with  which  to  test 
critical  theories?  Only  archaeology  is  bringing  forth 
any  new  facts  on  the  questions  raised  by  Biblical  criti- 
cism, the  very  raising  of  which  is  a  kind  of  dissent  from 
the  authority  or  the  sufficiency  of  the  known  or  seeming 
facts. 

Criticism  produces  only  theories;  it  combines  facts, 
but  produces  none.  Theories  are  only  thoughts. 
The  mind  in  its  thinking  produces  no  facts  except  for  the 
one  subject  of  psychology.  Even  so  patent  a  truth 
needs  to  be  stated  at  the  present  time  and  in  the  present 
temper  and  attitude  of  criticism.  One  might  even  be 
pardoned  for  sometimes  fancying  that  some  critics 
sometimes  think  that  in  their  thinking  they  think  facts. 

Then  the  exegetes  and  commentators  rarely,  if  ever 
now,  bring  to  light  new  facts,  any  more  than  present-day 
philosophers  give  to  the  world  new  thoughts  or  our 
poets-laureate  drape  their  muse  in  new  imagery.  A 
flood  of  light  is,  indeed,  pouring  across  the  page  of  the 
exegete  and  the  commentator  and  the  critic  in  these 
latter  days  which  makes  their  work  inestimably  more 
helpful  for  interpretation,  but  the  source  of  that  light 
is  neither  criticism  nor  exegesis  nor  comment,  but 
archaeology.  Archaeology  it  is  that  sets  around  Bible 
history  the  facts  of  its  environment,  which  illustrate 
Bible  literature  and  literary  methods  by  the  literature 
of  the  times  and  the  methods  of  its  own  literati,  which 
make  the  purity  and  the  sanctity  and  the  divinity  of  all 
the  things  of  revelation  stand  out  in  their  own  glorious 
light  by  putting  back  of  them  the  shadows  of  contem- 


40  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

porary  ritual  and  morality  and  superstition  and  which 
thus  put  to  the  test  of  actual  observation  the  teachings 
of  exegesis,  comment,  and  criticism. 

These,  then,  are  the  facts  with  which  to  test  critical 
theories  and  they  have  no  other  source.  Hence  no 
critical  theory  concerning  the  Bible  is  to  be  finally 
accepted  and  admitted  into  the  faith  and  Ufe  until 
tested  and  attested  by  archaeological  facts. 

The  function  of  archaeology  in  criticism  as  thus 
brought  out  has  been  glimpsed  here  and  there  by  Bible 
students  in  various  departments  of  investigation  far  back 
in  the  history  of  modem  learning  and  all  along  to  the 
present  time  without  being  permitted  to  exert  permanent 
or  serious  influence  upon  its  course  or  methods.  Even 
WelLhausen,  than  whom  no  one  has  made  more  use  of  the 
unsupported  critical  method  or  reUed  more  upon  it, 
yet  lays  down  as  fundamental  the  authority  of  some 
portions  of  archaeology  in  criticism  in  the  famous  pas- 
sage already  quoted^  from  the  beginning  of  his  History 
of  IsraeP  in  which  he  remands  the  final  determination 
of  the  whole  critical  discussion  to  the  '^  domain  of  religi- 
ous antiquities  and  dominant  rehgious  ideas. "  And  the 
distingusihed  Scottish  professor  of  this  generation, 
George  Adam  Smith,  also  quotes^  with  approval  these 
words  from  Napoleon:  "When  camping  upon  the  ruins 
of  ancient  cities,  some  one  read  the  Bible  aloud  every 
evening  in  the  tent  of  the  General  in  Chief.  The  veri- 
similitude and  truthfulness  of  the  descriptions  were 
striking.  They  are  still  suited  to  the  land  after  so 
many  ages  and  vicissitudes.  "^  But  Professor  Smith  in 
a  depreciatory  way  adds:  ''This  is  not  more  than  true, 
yet  it  does  not  carry  us  very  far. "  ''AH  that  geography 
can  do  is  to  show  whether  or  not  the  situations  were 


ATTITUDE  OF  CKITICISM  TOWARD  ARCHEOLOGY      41 

possible  at  the  time  to  which  they  are  assigned,  and 
even  this  is  a  task  often  beyond  her  resources.  "^  In  this 
comment  he  strangely  minimizes  all  three  of  the  essential 
marks  of  trustworthy  evidence, — the  time,  the  place,  and 
the  circumstances.  For  the  ''time"  he  distinctly  men- 
tions in  his  criticism,  the  place  is  required  for  the 
"situations, "  and  the  circumstances  are  needed  to  make 
the  "situation"  ''possible."  It  is  strange,  indeed,  that 
these  necessary  and  usually  sufficient  marks  of  trust- 
worthy evidence  should  thus  be  so  lightly  cast  aside  in 
criticism,  as  though  of  little  importance. 

These  two  utterances  of  distinguished  critics  represent 
very  well  the  attitude  of  criticism  toward  the  function 
of  archaeology  in  critical  discussions.  While  critics  here 
and  there  acknowledged  its  proper  function,  they  have 
not  heretofore  allowed  it  much  scope  for  the  exercise 
of  that  function. 


PART  II 

HISTORY 


Extravagant  claims  concerning  the  outcome  of  the  testing  of  criti- 
cal theories  by  archaeological  facts  have  been  made  both  by  some 
critics  and  by  some  of  their  opponents;  and  besides,  there  is  much 
archaeological  evidence  which  is  neutral  in  the  controversy.  But, 
as  far  as  the  process  of  testing  critical  theories  of  the  Bible  by  archaeo- 
logical facts  has  been  carried  to  the  present  time,  archaeology  is 
bringing  criticism  into  harmony  with  Scripture  at  its  face  value,  and 
is  not  definitely  and  unequivocally  encouraging  attempts  at  literary 
reconstruction  of  any  portion  of  the  Bible,  though  sometimes  asked 
to  render  such  service. 

"On  all  other  points  [than  where  evidence  is  neutral]  the  facts  of 
archaeology,  so  far  as  they  are  at  present  known,  harmonize  entirely 
with  the  positions  generally  adopted  by  critics." — Driver. 

"The  idea  still  prevalent  in  some  quarters,  that  archaeology  has 
overthrown  many  of  the  conclusions  of  literary  and  historical  criti- 
cism, has  been  based  simply  upon  a  misconception  of  the  facts."— 
Stanley  A.  Cook. 

"It  remains  true,  that,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  scholarship 
is  concerned,  it  [archaeology]  has  not  confirmed  a  single  position 
doubted  by  sober  criticism." — A.  S.  Peake. 

The  great  and  ultimate  hope  which  shines  over  all  the  darkness 
and  confusion  of  controversy  is  the  all  but  universal  sincerity  of 
purpose  and  effort  to  find  the  truth.  Sooner  or  later  it  will  be  found 
by  all.  The  needle  may  be  disturbed  by  many  things,  but  at  last 
will  come  back  to  the  true  course.  However  much  fallacies  may 
influence  thinking  for  a  long  time,  logic,  which  is  but  the  academic 
name  for  common  sense,  is  certain  to  prevail  in  the  end,  and  the 
"Spirit  will  lead  into  all  truth." 


CHAPTER  V 

Theories  not  Affecting  the  Historicity  or  Integ- 
rity OF  Scripture 

The  editor  of  one  of  our  American  religious  weeklies, 
a  gentleman  of  varied  learning  and  an  ardent  supporter 
of  the  current  Wellhausen  criticism,  when  allusion 
was  made  in  conversation  to  the  former  opinion  concern- 
ing the  ignorance  of  the  patriarchal  age,  indignantly 
protested  that  no  such  opinion  had  ever  been  held  by 
critics  and  so  criticism,  at  this  point,  had  never  been 
corrected  by  archaeology.  Here  was  an  astonishing 
situation,  to  say  the  least.  On  the  one  hand,  his 
honesty  and  sincerity  did  not  seem  to  be  open  to  ques- 
tion; on  the  other  hand,  such  ignorance  of  the  history 
of  archaeology  in  criticism  on  the  part  of  one  so  deeply 
interested  in  the  subject  seemed  incredible,  or  let  us 
say  incomprehensible.  But  observation  compels  the 
conclusion  that  such  ignorance  is  very  general;  that, 
in  fact,  the  history  of  archaeology  in  criticism  is  very 
much  in  need  of  an  historian,  and  that  nothing  would 
clarify  the  critical  situation  more  than  a  clear  and  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  part  which  archaeology  has  thus 
far  had  in  changing  the  claims  and  even  the  course  of 
criticism. 

The  scope  of  this  discussion  does  not  admit  of  an  aim 
so  ambitious  as  would  be  such  a  history  for  general  pur- 
poses, but  only  the  presentation  of  so  much  of  that 
history  as  will  serve  the  specific  purpose  of  the  discussion, 

45 


46  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  vindication  of  the  importance  of  archaeology  in 
criticism. 

The  history  of  archaeology  in  criticism  to  be  set  forth 
here  is  mainly  the  history  of  the  testing  of  critical  theo- 
ries by  arch£eological  facts.  The  story  of  the  furnish- 
ing of  the  historical  setting  of  Scripture  would  be  the 
account  of  the  archaeological  identification  of  peoples, 
places,  and  events,  of  manners,  customs,  and  institu- 
tions in  Bible  lands  during  the  past  one  hundred  years, 
one  of  the  most  fascinating  of  the  stories  of  modern 
research,  and  sufficient  of  itself  to  extend  to  many  vol- 
umes. Indeed,  the  mere  statement  of  results  constitutes 
a  large  part  of  every  present-day  encyclopaedia  of 
Biblical  knowledge.  Its  value  to  criticism  cannot  be 
overestimated,  but  to  present  this  historical  setting  here 
and  make  application  of  it  in  detail  would  be  to  take 
up  the  whole  critical  discussion  itself,  whereas  the  pur- 
pose is  only  to  illustrate  the  way  of  putting  criticism  to 
a  final  and  conclusive  test.  The  history  of  the  guiding 
of  critical  methods  by  archaeological  information  is  in 
the  making.  There  can  hardly  as  yet  be  said  to  be  any 
to  record.  Critics  have  not  been  inclined  to  this  time 
to  allow  archaeological  facts  to  give  much  guidance  to 
their  methods. 

When  we  turn  to  the  history  of  the  testing  of  critical 
theories  by  the  results  of  archaeological  research,  we 
find  the  process  of  that  testing  to  be  so  varied  and 
extended  that  it  would  make  a  large  book  of  itself. 
Only  an  outline  of  it  can  be  given  here  to  illustrate  the 
method  and  its  results.  An  outhne,  however,  will  be 
quite  adequate  to  the  purpose,  and  sufficient  will  be 
given  to  warrant  an  independent  judgment  of  the  value 
of  this  kind  of  evidence  in  criticism. 


THEORIES    NOT   AFFECTING    SCRIPTURE  47 

Extravagant  claims  concerning  the  outcome  of  the 
testing  of  critical  theories  by  archaeological  facts  have 
been  made  both  by  some  of  the  critics  and  by  some  of 
their  opponents.  Driver  says:  "Now  while,  as  need 
hardly  be  said,  there  are  many  points  on  which,  as 
between  what  may  be  termed  the  traditional  and  the 
critical  views  of  the  Old  Testament  the  verdict  of  archae- 
ology is  neutral,  on  all  other  points  the  facts  of  archae- 
ology, so  far  as  they  are  at  present  known,  harmonize 
entirely  with  the  positions  generally  adopted  by  critics."^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  astronomer  Piazzi  Smith 
thought  that  the  great  pyramid  proved  the  "wisdom 
of  the  Egyptians"  to  have  included  some  of  the  abstruse 
problems  of  astronomy,  and  Dr.  Seiss,  in  his  Miracle 
in  Stone,  was  confident  that  the  same  colossal  monu- 
ment definitely  portrayed  some  of  the  extreme  positions 
of  the  premillennial  theology!  Quoting  the  words  of 
Paul,  "The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first;  then  we  which 
are  aUve  and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  together  with 
them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air;"  he 
adds,  "Such  revealed  facts  as  to  one  outcome  from  the 
dispensation  that  now  is,  would  call  for  just  such  an 
arrangement  of  symbols  in  Egypt  as  we  find  in  this  top 
outlet  from  the  Pyramid  Grand  Gallery.  "^ 

Some  instances  of  the  testing  of  critical  theories  of 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  facts  of  archaeology  are  here 
to  be  presented,  those  only  being  selected  the  historical 
proof  of  which  cannot  be  questioned,  no  matter  what 
may  be  one's  critical  views  or  how  much  those  views 
may  be  antagonized  by  the  result  of  the  tests.     We 

will  FIRST  CONSIDER  THE  THEORIES  NOT  AFFECTING  THE 
HISTORICITY  OR  INTEGRITY   OF   SCRIPTURE. 

Many  critical  theories,  notably  those  not  affecting 


48  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  historicity  or  the  integrity  of  Scripture;  i.  e.,  accor- 
dant with  the  face  value  of  Scripture,  have  been  corrob- 
orated, and  others  have  been  discredited,  by  archaeo- 
logical research. 

I.    THEOKIES   CORROBORATED 

A  few  only  of  the  large  number  corroborated  will  be 
mentioned.  Foremost  among  these  may  be  placed, 
in  the  order  of  their  importance,  the  three  handmaids 
of  history,  geography,  ethnology,  and  chronology, 
the  most  important  of  all  archaeological  evidence  yet  the 
most  neglected  by  criticism.  After  these,  some  less 
important,  though  better  recognized,  items  of  evidence 
will  be  presented. 

1.  Of  the  many  theories  underlying  criticism,  and 
interpretation  as  well,  none  has  received  more  abundant 
and  exact  and  even  starthng  corroboration  than  the 
theory  of  the  geographical  and  topographical  trust- 
worthiness of  Scripture.  It  is  the  all  but  universal 
assumption  that  the  peoples,  places,  and  events  of 
Scripture  would  be  found  just  where  Scripture  locates 
them  and  that  every  description,  or  even  casual  hint, 
concerning  locality  or  landscape  is  correct — not  the 
imaginings  of  mere  romancers,  as  Homer's  account  of  the 
travels  of  Ulysses;  not  attempted  adaptations,  as  the 
Egyptian  romances  of  Ebers  or  the  medieval  descrip- 
tions by  Marion  Crawford  or  the  more  classical  Palestine 
descriptions  of  Tasso  in  Jerusalem  Taken;  not  even  con- 
ventional delineations  which,  like  the  historical  novel  of 
today,  aim  only  at  correctness  in  some  things  and  adapt 
others  to  the  exigencies  of  fiction,  but  exact  representa- 
tions of  realities. 


TRUSTWORTHINESS   OF   SCRIPTURE  49 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  belittle  the  importance 
of  this  assumed  geographical  and  topographical  trust- 
worthiness of  Scripture.  George  Adam  Smith  says: 
''Many  legends  are  wonderful  photographs  of  scenery. 
And,  therefore,  let  us  at  once  admit  that,  while  we  may 
have  other  reasons  for  the  truth  of  the  patriarchal 
narratives,  we  cannot  prove  this  on  the  ground  that 
their  itineraries  and  place-names  are  correct.  "^  Driver 
says,  in  commenting  upon  this,  that  "it  is  for  this 
reason  that  exploration  in  Palestine,  valuable  and  inter- 
esting as  its  results  have  been,  has  contributed  but 
little  towards  solving  the  great  historical  problems 
which  the  Old  Testament  presents.  "^  More  significant 
than  the  positive  utterances  of  any  of  those  critics  who 
give  much  attention  to  archaeological  evidence  of  a 
geographical  and  topographical  character  is  the  general 
disposition  of  critics  to  ignore  this  kind  of  evidence 
altogether.  It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  what  is 
accessible  to  all  the  critics  and  is  by  them  considered 
useful  will  be  used.     They  do  not  use  this. 

But  all  attempts  to  belittle  the  importance  of  the 
geographical  and  topographical  indications  and  allu- 
sions given  in  Scripture,  whether  by  ignoring  them  or  by 
making  Ught  of  them,  are  beside  the  mark.  Correct- 
ness concerning  the  place  of  an  event  is  the  first  and 
most  important  mark  of  a  true  narrative  of  real  happen- 
ings, and  the  confirmation  of  such  correctness  in  the 
Scripture  is  the  first  step  toward  the  confirmation  of 
Scripture;  just  as  the  discrediting  of  the  statements 
concerning  the  place  of  an  event  makes  unnecessary 
any  further  efforts  to  discredit  a  narrative  of  this  event. 
The  principle  underljdng  the  proving  of  an  alibi  is  fatal 
always  and  everywhere.     It  may  be  readily  granted 


50  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

that  revelation  in  the  form  of  allegory,  parable,  or  vision 
might  have  imaginary  scenery.  But  the  problem  of 
such  BibHcal  literature  is  not  the  one  presented  to  us 
in  the  critical  controversies  of  the  present  time  and  argu- 
ment along  that  line  is  wasted  effort.  Critical  contro- 
versies do  not  concern  manifest  allegory  but  that  which 
claims  to  be  history.  The  problem  is  not  of  the  geo- 
graphical and  topographical  untrustworthiness  of  imagi- 
native scripture  that  does  not  exist,  but  of  the  trust- 
worthiness of  historical  scripture  which  we  have  in  hand. 
Any  attempt  to  belittle  the  importance  of  the  place- 
names  in  such  literature  is  to  belittle  the  importance  of 
history  itself,  which  cannot  exist  aside  from  known 
places. 

The  theory  of  the  geographical  and  topographical 
trustworthiness  of  Scripture  has  been,  and  is,  of  well- 
nigh  universal  acceptance.  Exegesis  almost  always  al- 
lows the  assumption  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
Scripture  indications  of  places  and  persons  to  have 
weight  in  the  making  up  of  its  conclusions.  Discus- 
sion, even  between  the  most  antagonistic  scholars,  has 
usually  proceeded  upon  the  common  assumption  of  the 
correctness  of  this  theory.  And  in  accordance  with  it, 
archaeologists  have  fitted  out  extensive  expeditions, 
have  made  long  and  arduous  and  dangerous  journeys, 
have  bought  or  leased  expensive  tracts  of  land  and  paid 
well  for  the  rights  and  privileges  of  research,  have  made 
their  measurements  and  completed  their  excavations, 
and,  also,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  have  had  their 
expectations  rewarded  with  complete  fulfillment  and 
their  confidence  with  complete  vindication.  The  cor- 
rectness of  geographical  and  topographical  notes  and 
notices  in  Scripture  has  been  established.    The  whole 


ETHNOGRAPHICAL  COERECTNESS  OF  SCRIPTURE      51 

body  of  identifications  in  Bible  lands  attest  this  theory 
and  the  whole  list  of  sacred  geographies,  uniform  in 
every  essential  particular,  are  in  evidence  in  support 
of  it.  Even  the  works  of  such  authors  as  Professor 
George  Adam  Smith,  who  in  his  notes  upon  Napoleon's 
Palestine  letters  has  spoken  in  depreciation  of  it,  do 
yet  themselves  confirm  the  theory  in  every  part. 

Both  the  geography  and  the  topography  of  many 
ancient  writings  are  treated  with  scant  regard  and  justly 
so.  Even  the  works  of  ancient  geographers  are  often 
questioned,  and  sometimes  found  incorrect  beyond  dis- 
pute. In  contrast  with  this  attitude  toward  ancient 
geographical  notices  generally,  there  is  nothing  in 
ancient  history  so  completely  confirmed  and  so  univer- 
sally accepted  as  the  trustworthiness  of  the  geographi- 
cal and  topographical  indications  of  Scripture. 

The  place,  the  most  important  mark  of  trustworthy 
testimony,  is  being  established  for  the  whole  Bible 
story.  This  is  not  unimportant.  In  this  fact  we  have  a 
subfoundation  for  the  confirmation  of  Scripture.  The 
completion  of  the  whole  list  of  identifications  is  rapidly 
approaching,  and  the  collocation  of  these  identifica- 
tions has  given  us  anew,  from  entirely  independent 
testimony  of  archaeology,  the  whole  outline  of  the  Bibli- 
cal narrative  and  its  surroundings,  at  once  the  necessary 
material  for  the  historical  imagination  and  the  surest 
foundation  of  apologetics.  It  is  the  identifications 
which  differentiate  history  from  myth,  geography  from 
"the  land  of  nowhere,"  the  record  of  events  from  tales 
of  "never  was,"  Scripture  from  folklore  and  the  gospel 
of  the  Saviour  of  the  world  from  the  delusions  of  hope.^ 

2.  Another  theory  which  has  been  substantiated  is 
the  theory  of  the  ethnographical  correctness  of  Scripture. 


52  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

That  the  relations  between  peoples  as  indicated  in 
Scripture,  the  representations  concerning  kinship,  con- 
cerning the  origin,  rise,  and  decline  of  nations,  concern- 
ing suzerainty  and  servitude,  are  correct  has  been  a 
working  theory  for  all  general  purposes  by  nearly  all 
students  of  the  Word,  and  only  departed  from  by  a  few 
for  special  ends. 

Of  one  of  the  most  remarkable  geographic  state- 
ments in  all  history,  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis, 
Kautzsch  says:  ''The  so-called  table  of  nations  remains 
according  to  all  the  results  of  monumental  research,  an 
ethnographic  original  document  of  the  first  rank,  which 
nothing  can  replace."^  A  mere  glance  along  the  lines 
of  research  indicated  by  this  table  of  nations  brings 
at  once  into  view  how  remarkably  this  theory  has  been 
confirmed.  Babylonia,  a  great  stronghold  of  Semit- 
ism,  is  represented  as  originally  founded  by  non-Semitic 
people  of  Gush,  whom  archaeology  has  identified  also 
as  non-Semitic  and  given  to  them  the  name  Sumerians, 
or  Accadians .  Their  origin  has  not  yet  been  determined 
by  research.  Out  of  this  non-Semitic  Babylonia,  the 
Bible  says,  "went  forth  Asshur  and  builded  Nineveh 
and  the  city  Rehoboth  and  Galah,  and  Resin  between 
Nineveh  and  Galah:  the  same  is  a  great  city."^  Thus 
the  Assyrian  civilization,  so  distinctly  Semitic,  is  said 
to  have  come  out  of  the  non-Semitic  civilization  of 
Babylonia.  But  the  archaeology  of  those  lands  con- 
firms the  statement.  Then  the  table  of  nations  in 
Genesis  represents  Ganaanite  civiUzation  as  originally 
Hamitic.  ''And  the  sons  of  Ham:  Gush  and  Mizraim 
and  Phut  and  Ganaan."  "And  Ganaan  begat  Sidon 
his  first-born,  and  Heth  and  the  Jebusite  and  the  Amor- 
ite  and  the  Girgasite  and  the  Hivite  and  the  Arkite  and 


ETHNOGRAPHICAL  CORRECTNESS  OF  SCRIPTURE      53 

the  Sinite,  and  the  Arvadite  and  the  Zemarite  and  the 
Hamathite:  and  afterward  were  the  famihes  of  the 
Canaanites  scattered  abroad."  History  shows  Canaan 
in  later  times  to  be  unmistakably  Semitic,  and  "the 
language  of  Canaan"  a  Semitic  tongue.  Yet  archae- 
ological research  confirms  even  this  seeming  confusion. 
The  earliest  remains  at  Gezer  are  distinctly  not  Semitic ; 
yet,  not  only  there,  but  everywhere  else  in  the  land, 
the  only  "language "  of  early  times  yet  known  is  Semitic. 
Whether  or  not  the  Hamitic  people  of  the  earliest  period 
spoke  a  Semitic  tongue  in  that  land  it  is  impossible  to 
say,  but  the  "language  of  Canaan"  in  all  historical 
time  was  Semitic  until  the  Greek  invasion. 

Then  the  history  of  the  international  politics  of 
Israel  serves  as  a  framework  into  which  the  results  of 
archaeological  research  may  be  arranged  with  perfect 
harmony,  and  even  the  details  of  that  history  are  year 
by  year  being  exactly  confirmed. 

Thus  the  progress  of  archaeological  research  has  sus- 
tained this  general  working  theory  of  the  ethnographic 
correctness  of  Scripture  and  every  year  adds  the  corro- 
boration of  some  particular  items  which,  for  some  special 
end,  have  been  represented  as  against  the  theory. 
Indeed,  that  the  general  theory  of  the  correctness  of 
the  representations  concerning  tribal  relationships  in 
Scripture  is  being  sustained,  is  indisputable.  The 
Uterature  of  the  subject  is  so  great  and  so  varied  and 
the  names  associated  with  it  are  the  names  of  such  dis- 
tinguished scholars  that  there  is  need  for  no  more  than 
the  mention  of  Hommel's  Hebrew  Tradition,  Gunkel 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Israel  and  Bahylonien,  Sayce  in 
the  second  chapter  of  Patriarchal  Palestine,  Winckler 
in   Orientalistischen   Litteratur-Zeitung,    December   15, 


54  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

1906,  and  Budge  in  the  History  of  Egypt,  especially  the 
first  volume. 

3.  The  theory  of  a  real  system  of  chronology  in  the 
early  Old  Testament  history,  in  former  times  univer- 
sally held,  latterly  much  disputed,  has  been  corroborated 
by  archaeological  research.  This  is  not  to  say  that  this 
or  that  ''system"  of  chronology  has  been  corroborated, 
a  question  which  will  be  discussed  in  a  later  chapter, 
but  only  that  the  older  theory  of  a  real  trustworthy 
chronology  in  the  Bible  is  confirmed,  and  that  the  later 
theories  of  its  unreliable  character  have  not  been  sus- 
tained. 

There  is  as  yet  a  great  deal  of  unsolved  mystery  about 
Bibhcal  chronology,  as  about  Egyptian  and,  indeed, 
about  Oriental  chronology  generally.  Here  is,  as  yet, 
to  a  large  extent,  a  terra  incognita.  One  of  the  saddest 
features  of  the  Bible  controversy  of  the  present  day  is  the 
positive  assertion  of  mathematical  definiteness  about 
stupendous  antiquity  put  forth  by  writers  on  both  sides 
of  the  controversy  to  sustain  their  theories.  The  one 
thing  certainly  and  definitely  known  about  ancient 
Oriental  chronology  is  that  it  was  lacking  in  the  mathe- 
matical definiteness  of  present-day  annals.  No  one 
can,  by  any  means  at  present  available,  check  off  a 
tally  -sheet,  date  by  date,  either  for  or  against  Bible 
chronology.  While  this  is  true  and  the  Bible  chronology 
is  not  fully  understood,  yet,  at  the  same  time  it  has 
been  vindicated  as  a  real  system  of  chronology  in  which 
the  period  to  which  events  are  referred  is  correct,  the 
order  of  events  is  the  order  in  which  they  occurred,  and 
the  play  and  counterplay  of  influences  are  correctly 
timed  and  arranged.  In  this  vindication,  Egyptian 
explorations  have  an  important  part.     It  must  be  kept 


BIBLICAL  CHRONOLOGY  TRUSTWORTHY  55 

in  mind  also  that  the  Assyrian  chronology  vindicates 
the  Biblical  system.  The  Egyptian  and  the  Assyrian 
testimony  are  by  two  equal  and  independent  witnesses. 
Each  strengthens  the  other,  yet  each  is  complete  and 
satisfactory  in  itself. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  indefiniteness  of  the 
Biblical  chronology.  In  the  accomit  of  the  duration 
of  the  Egyptian  sojourn  of  Israel/  the  ''four  hundred 
years, "  "the  fourth  generation, "  and  the  ''four  hundred 
and  thirty  years"  manifestly  refer  to  the  same  period. 
''Generations"  are  evidently  put  for  centuries;  and  the 
round  number  "four  hundred"  for  the  definite  number 
"four  hundred  and  thirty."  The  astonishingly  fre- 
quent occurence  of  "forty  years"  or  a  multiple  of  forty 
years,  or  the  half  of  forty  years,  points  strongly  towards 
a  system  in  which  forty  years  occupied  a  place  and  had  a 
meaning  akin  to  our  use  of  the  word  "decade."  The 
overlapping  of  reigns  and  lives  was  probably  frequent. 
So  the  breaking  of  genealogies.  A  modern  genealogy 
is  supposed  to  be  continuous.  "The  principle  of  these 
genealogies  must  have  been  different.  "^  The  genealogy 
of  our  Lord  gives  fourteen  generations  from  Abraham 
to  David,  an  average  of  nearly  sixty  years  to  a  genera- 
tion on  the  lowest  computation.  There  was  no  igno- 
rance, no  incorrect  statement  on  the  part  of  the  sacred 
writer,  who  wrote  to  Jews  familiar  with  genealogies  and 
with  the  principle  upon  which  they  were  constructed, 
and  having  right  at  hand  the  means  of  verification. 
His  words  were  liable  to  no  misunderstanding  among 
them.  The  system  was  then  perfectly  understood. 
The  ignorance  is  on  our  part,  and  the  mystery  lies  in 
our  very  imperfect  understanding  of  the  technicalities 
of  the  Biblical  systems  of  chronology  and  genealogy. 


56  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Perhaps  when  the  mystery  is  solved,  the  chronological 
system  of  the  Bible  will  be  found  to  correspond  not  so 
much  to  our  system  of  months,  years,  centuries,  and 
millenniums,  as  to  our  other  system  of  decades,  genera- 
tions, ages,  and  eras.  It  may  be  said,  But  they  used 
definite  numbers.  It  may  be  replied,  A  definite  number 
underlies  our  word  ''decade."  Then,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Biblical  system  of  chronology  is  twofold.  There 
is  an  historical  system  and,  in  additon,  a  prophetic 
system  founded  upon  the  historical,  in  which  a  day 
stands  for  a  year  and  a  month  for  thirty  years;  facts 
which  need  no  illustration  here. 

Now  the  Egyptian  explorations  furnish  a  parallel  9,nd 
an  illustration  of  the  same  kind  of  a  system,  and  a  com- 
parison of  some  details  of  Biblical  and  Egyptian  chronol- 
ogy completes  the  confirmation  of  the  Biblical  system 
as  a  real  system.  Egyptian  chronology  displays  this 
same  indefiniteness  which  often  seems  so  much  Hke 
contradiction.  There  is  the  same  overlapping  of  reigns 
and  the  same  computation  by  periods  as  well  as  by 
calendar  years,  with  a  like  confusing  multiplication  of 
measuring  periods.  There  is  also  a  double  system  as 
in  the  Bible,  one  historical  and  the  oither  based  upon 
it,  "the  reign  of  the  gods,"  in  which  a  month  or  a 
season  is  put  for  a  year.  Thus  the  main  features  of  the 
chronological  system  of  the  Old  Testament  are  found 
in  the  Egj^tian  system.  Certainly  forgers  of  the  Vllth 
or  the  Vth  century  B.C.,  who  are  reputed  by  some  critics 
to  have  assigned  dates  to  a  history,  in  part  invented, 
and  falsely  attributed  to  early  national  heroes,  never 
had  anything  to  with  the  Egyptian  system.  These 
pious  Jewish  Mtinchausens  certainly  did  not  do  so 
extensive  a  business  of  historical  counterfeiting  as  to 


BIBLICAL  CHRONOLOGY  TRUSTWORTHY  57 

cover  all  antiquity.  The  more  rational  conclusion  is 
that  this  kind  of  a  chronological  system  having  its 
independent  parallel  in  the  system  of  Egypt  of  patri- 
archal days,  was  a  real  system.  That  it  was  so,  is 
shown  conclusively  by  the  synchronizing  of  events  in 
the  two  systems.  By  pursuing  independent  investiga- 
tions in  both  Egyptian  and  Biblical  chronology  and 
history  and  arranging  the  results  in  parallel  columns, 
we  find  that  Josiah  is  side  by  side  with  Pharaoh  Necho, 
as  the  Bible  places  him;  Hezekiah  with  Tirhaka:  and 
Rehoboam  with  Shishak.  The  Biblical  account  of  the 
Exodus  is  properly  timed  with  the  Israel  inscription^ 
of  Meremptah  II;  and  the  period  of  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt  from  Joseph  to  Moses  lies  side  by  side  with  the 
''four  hundred  years"  of  the  Rameses  tablet,^  counting 
from  the  Hyksos  king  Nubti  near  the  time  of  Apophis, 
the  Pharaoh  of  Joseph,  to  the  reign  of  Rameses  the 
Great,  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Oppression.  These  are  but 
a  few  of  the  multitude  of  synchronisms  which  may  be 
traced  between  the  chronological  system  of  the  Bible 
and  that  of  ancient  Egypt.  It  is  incredible  that  a 
chronology  invented  for  a  history,  in  part  imaginary  and 
largely  flung  back  upon  earlier  times  and  associated  with 
national  heroes  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  a  brighter 
halo,  should  have  such  remarkable  verifications  in 
parallel  columns  with  real  history.  The  only  reason- 
able conclusion  is  that  the  Bible  in  its  early  history  has 
a  real  system  of  chronology  and  this  goes  far  toward 
establishing  a  real  history.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that 
the  highly  wrought  artificiality  of  the  modern  historical 
novel  had  a  place  in  the  literature  of  that  day.  In 
fact  it  had  not.  An  assertion  the  proof  of  which  no  one 
will  call  for.^ 


58  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  chronological  system 
of  the  Bible  corresponds  much  more  to  the  Egyptian 
than  to  the  Assyrian  system.  This  is  as  it  should  be 
on  the  Bible's  own  claim  of  Egyptian  authorship  or 
associations  for  so  much  of  the  early  Biblical  record, 
and  rather  peculiar  on  the  critical  supposition  that 
Babylonian  influences  predominated. 

'  4.  The  theory  of  the  correctness  of  the  imagery  of  the 
Bible  is  being  sustained,  as  witness  the  whole  body  of 
discoveries  from  the  very  beginning  of  archaeological 
research  to  the  present  time.  This  theory  is  another  of 
the  fundamental  and  universal  working  theories  of 
criticism  which  is  however,  sometimes,  in  the  heat  of 
controversy,  forgotten  and  its  importance  overlooked 
or  even  belittled.  But,  whatever  the  theory  of  the 
origin  and  the  authorship  of  the  various  books  of  the 
Bible,  there  is  always,  with  only  a  few  special  excep- 
tions, the  underlying  assumption  on  the  part  of  the 
critics  of  the  correctness  of  the  imagery  reflecting  the 
topography,  the  flora  and  the  fauna,  the  seasons,  the 
customs  and  the  institutions.  Indeed,  upon  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  imagery  as  upon  exactness  in  the  use 
of  words,  criticism,  depends.  Etymology  only  provides 
the  bones  of  words,  it  is  imagery  that  supphes  flesh  and 
blood  and  the  breath  of  hfe,  and  something  more  also; 
it  supphes  that  which  in  a  person  we  call  the  counte- 
nance. 

Thus  the  importance  of  the  imagery  becomes  very 
far-reaching.  It  is  no  mere  unimportant  accident  of 
the  characteristics  of  a  book  that  its  imagery  is  correct. 
If  it  had  a  false  countenance,  it  would  be  so  far  a  false 
book.  If  it  has  professedly  an  imaginary  countenance, 
it  so  far  definitely  limits  its  scope  for  teaching  the  truth. 


CORRECTNESS  OF  THE  IMAGERY  OF  THE  BIBLE    59 

This  truthfulness  of  countenance  marks  the  difference 
between  romance  and  reaUsm  in  fiction  and  gives  to 
reahsm  so  much  wider  field  for  the  teaching  of  truth. 
It  makes  to  some  extent  also  the  difference  between 
history  of  the  old  school  and  history  of  the  new;  between 
the  impassioned  declamation  of  Prescott  and  the  word 
painting  of  Ridpath.  It  makes,  alas!  the  difference 
between  a  real  newspaper  and  the  works  of  fiction 
which  the  so-called  journalism  of  today  so  often  inflicts 
upon  a  too  credulous  public. 

Then,  a  witness  in  court  who  is  caught  in  inaccuracies 
of  coloring  in  his  description  of  an  event,  i.  e.,  the 
imagery  of  whose  story  is  not  correct,  is  a  discredited 
witness ;  while  the  witness  the  imagery  of  whose  testi- 
mony is  accurate  in  every  respect,  ingratiates  himself 
at  once  in  the  esteem  of  the  jurymen  as  probably  in 
other  respects  a  trustworthy  witness.  So,  while  the 
correctness  of  the  imagery  of  the  Bible  does  not  extend 
its  guarantee  to  every  detail  of  the  testimony  of  the 
book,  it  does  give  it  a  good  countenance,  which  commends 
it  much.  Without  that  good  countenance,  the  Bible 
would  be  a  discredited  book.  And  it  is  not  difficult  to 
imagine  how  such  inaccuracy  of  imagery,  if  it  existed, 
would  be  used  by  critics  to  discredit  utterly  the  book  as 
a  revelation  from  God  or  even  a  trustworthy  teacher 
of  this  modern  self-sufficient  world  in  any  respect. 

Now  this  correctness  of  imagery,  this  underlying 
assumption  of  criticism  of  every  hue,  is  being  confirmed 
indisputably  in  its  general  features,  and  corroborated 
year  by  year  in  its  minutest  details,  even  in  those  special 
features  of  the  imagery  which  for  any  reason  have 
been  disputed.  To  this  end  testify  the  whole  company 
of  Oriental  residents,  inteUigent  travelers  and  scientific 


60  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

investigators,  from  Napoleon  in  his  acccount  of  his 
Eastern  campaigns/  to  Robinson  ^  and  Stanley,'  learned 
travelers;  Thompson,^  for  nearly  half  a  century  a  resi- 
dent of  the  land;  Van  Lennep,^  Palmer,^  in  the  Desert 
of  the  Exodus;  and  the  distinguished  Clermont  Ganneau,^ 
in  his  ArchcEological  Researches.  To  these  now  may  be 
added  Van  Dyke,^  of  the  present  day,  traveler,  essayist, 
poet,  who  comes  to  us  with  what  he  says  is  to  him  a  new 
conviction  ''that  Christianity  is  an  out-of-doors  religion. 
From  the  birth  in  the  grotto  at  Bethehlehem  (where 
Joseph  and  Mary  took  refuge  because  there  was  no 
room  for  them  in  the  inn)  to  the  crowning  death  on  the 
hill  of  Calvary  outside  the  city  wall,  all  of  its  important 
events  took  place  out  of  doors.  Except  the  discourse 
in  the  upper  chamber  at  Jerusalem,  all  of  its  great 
words,  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  the  last  com- 
mission to  the  disciples,  were  spoken  in  the  open  air. 
How  shall  we  understand  it  unless  we  carry  it  under  the 
free  sky  and  interpret  it  in  the  companionship  of  na- 
ture?" Because  we  can  do  so  and  find  the  imagery  cor- 
responding to  the  reality,  the  interpretation  carries  con- 
viction with  it. 

5.  Then  the  theory  of  the  accuracy  of  Scripture  in 
both  the  originals  and  the  copies  has  been  corroborated 
to  a  most  remarkable  extent.  Every  theory  of  inspira- 
tion consciously  postulates  this  theory  of  accuracy  in 
greater  or  less  degree,  and  there  are  persons  who  beheve 
that  unconsciously  it  is  always  in  the  greater  degree,  on 
the  ground  that  inspiration  of  a  literature  cannot  secure 
anything  that  it  does  not  secure  through  the  exercise 
of  care  over  the  words.  For  no  page  of  literature  con- 
veys anything  that  it  does  not  convey  through  its  words. 
Indeed,  the  most  prevalent  analytical  theory  of  Scrip- 


THE   ACCURACY   OF   SCRIPTURE  61 

ture  put  forth  by  criticism,  with  its  lists  of  words  indica- 
ting, so  it  is  asserted,  a  various  authorship,  demands  for 
its  very  hfe  a  degree  of  accuracy  and  invariableness 
in  the  use  of  words  in  both  the  writing  of  the  originals 
and  in  the  transmission  of  them  by  copyists  greater 
than  that  demanded  by  any,  the  most  exacting,  theory 
of  inspiration.  Even  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration 
allows  the  varying  of  language  by  authors  through  the 
use  of  synonyms  and  other  equivalent  expressions,  but 
what  inextricable  confusion  would  be  introduced  into 
the  critical  analysis,  if  it  should  be  shown  that  such 
latitude  was  taken  in  varying  the  characteristic  phrase- 
ology of  the  original  authors  according  to  which  the 
analysis  is  made,  or  that  many  inaccuracies  had  crept 
into  the  transmission  of  the  same  by  copyists!  The 
consideration  of  the  problem  so  presented  is  a  task  for 
the  critics,  which,  however,  they  have,  to  the  present 
time  almost  wholly  ignored.'  The  contribution  which 
archaeology  makes  to  this  subject  is  that  wherever  it 
has  been  possible  to  test  the  statements  of  Scripture  in 
its  multitudinous  historical  notices  and  its  other  refer- 
ences to  fact,  the  Bible  has  been  found  correct  to  a  remark- 
able degree  and  that  in  its  present  form  and  even  in 
minute  peculiarities  of  statement.  No  one  can  com- 
pare with  Scripture  statements  the  works  of  Brugsch,^ 
Naville,'  Petrie,'*  Rawlinson,^  Botta,^  Layard,^  Sayce,^ 
Vincent,^  Hilprechtj^"  Clay,''  Steindorf,'^  and  a  score 
of  others  without  being  deeply  impressed  with  the  fact 
that  this  theory  of  the  accuracy  of  Scripture,  demanded 
by  every  variety  of  the  views  of  inspiration  and  still 
more  by  the  critical  analysis  of  the  books  of  the  Bible 
by  means  of  lists  of  words,  is  fully,  even  surprisingly, 
sustained  by  the  results  of  archaeology. 


CHAPTER  VI 

Theories  not  Affecting  the  Historicity  or  Integ- 
rity OF  Scripture  Corroborated — Continued 

The  theories  thus  far  mentioned,  as  being  corroborated 
by  archaeological  evidence,  have  been  of  a  general  char- 
acter. Such  are  of  the  greatest  importance.  For, 
although  popular  acclaim  is  awarded  most  readily  to 
exact  corroboration  of  some  particular  event  or  the 
finding  of  some  particular  object  of  note  in  Bible  history, 
such  particular  events  and  objects  all  put  together  are 
scarcely  worth  one  well-confirmed  general  principle  or 
fact  extending  its  influence  over  the  whole  historical 
field.  Still,  in  addition  to  the  evidence  which  has  been 
presented  sustaining  general  principles  or  facts,  a  few 
of  the  special  discoveries  may  profitably  be  considered 
in  illustration  of  this  part  of  the  subject. 

6.  The  theory  of  the  location  of  the  garden  of  Eden  in 
the  great  valley  of  the  Euphrates  in  the  northwest 
portion  of  Chaldea.  It  is  not  necessary  at  this  point  nor 
for  the  purpose  here  in  view  to  discriminate  among  the 
various  theological  interpretations  of  the  garden  of 
Eden.  For,  whether  the  mythical  element  in  the  story 
of  beginnings  at  Eden  be  much  or  Uttle  or  nothing, 
whether  the  story  is  intended  to  be  an  account  of  one 
of  the  beginnings  or  of  the  one  beginning  of  the  race,  it 
is  universally  believed  that  history  and  the  race  had  a 
beginning  and  that  this  story  of  Eden  purports  to  give 
a  beginning,  to  focahze  the  streams  of  history  in  one 

62 


GEOLOGICAL  THEORY  OF  THE   FLOOD  63 

principle  fountain  somewhere  in  the  Euphrates  valley. 
From  this  same  general  region  in  western  Asia,  also, 
the  second  dispersion  is  represented  to  have  taken 
place.  Thus,  according  to  the  Bible  account,  Eden, 
notwithstanding  the  subsequent  destruction  of  men  by 
the  Flood  and  the  repeopling  of  the  world,  remains  the 
starting  point  of  the  race. 

The  theory  of  this  location  of  the  point  of  departure 
for  the  dispersion  of  the  race,  as  indicated  both  by  the 
record  in  the  Bible  and  by  facts  ascertained  through 
research,  is  all  but  universally  held.  It  cannot  be  said 
that  it  is  yet  definitely  substantiated,  but  it  is  receiving 
cumulative  corroboration  along  ethnological  lines. 
Wherever  it  is  possible  to  trace  back  lines  of  migration 
of  the  early  nations  mentioned,  or  to  gather  notes  of 
direction  from  the  traditions  of  various  peoples,  it  is 
always  found  that  the  ultimate  direction  is  toward  a 
comparatively  small  area  in  western  Asia. 

7.  The  geological  theory  of  the  flood  of  Noah  as  the 
last  great  change  in  land  levels  is  being  most  exactly 
confirmed  not  only  by  investigations  in  glacial  history, 
but  by  examination  of  the  records  of  that  cataclysm 
that  befell  the  antediluvian  world  which  are  still  to  be 
seen  written  upon  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  Europe 
and  of  central  and  western  Asia. 

Concerning  the  time  at  which  geologic  changes  may 
have  had  part  in  the  great  catastrophe  of  the  Deluge, 
Professor  Salisbury  has  this  to  say:  ''The  date  and 
duration  of  the  glacial  epoch  are  matters  of  greatest 
interest,  but  neither  has  been  determined  with  numerical 
exactness.  Many  fines  of  calculation,  all  of  them  con- 
fessedly more  or  less  uncertain,  point  to  the  retreat  of 
the  last  ice  sheet  from  the  northern  part  of  the  United 


64  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

States  six  thousand  or  ten  thousand  years  ago.  While 
these  figures  are  to  be  looked  upon  as  estimates  only, 
there  are  so  many  lines  of  evidence  pointing  in  the  same 
direction  that  the  recency  (geologically  speaking)  of  the 
last  glaciation  must  be  looked  on  as  established.  The 
best  data  for  the  calculations  which  have  led  to  the 
above  results  are  furnished  by  Niagara  Falls  and  the 
Falls  of  St.  Anthony,  at  Minneapolis.  In  each  case, 
the  distance  the  falls  has  receded  since  the  ice  dis- 
appeared, and  the  present  rate  of  recession  are  known 
with  some  degree  of  approximation  to  the  truth.  Assum- 
ing the  rate  of  recession  to  have  been  uniform,  the 
above  results  as  to  the  duration  of  post-glacial  times 
for  these  localities  are  obtained.  "^ 

Professor  Wright  believes  the  events  of  this  glacial 
time  to  have  been  a  vera  causa  of  the  Deluge.  ''By 
attention  to  the  general  conditions  accompanying  the 
glacial  epoch,  we  are  led  to  the  recognition  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  unique  period  of  instability  in  the  relations 
of  land  and  water  levels  which  passed  away  only  a  few 
thousand  years  ago.  For  a  brief  geological  period,  the 
ocean  beds  were  relieved  of  an  immense  mass  of  water, 
which  was  piled  up  in  the  shape  of  ice  upon  the  northern 
continents.  After  a  time,  which  was  very  brief  as 
geologists  reckon  it,  this  ice  melted  off,  reheving  the 
glacial  area  from  its  pressure,  and  restoring  it  again  to 
its  original  place  in  the  ocean. "  ''The  geologist,  there- 
fore, need  not  be  disturbed  by  such  a  consummation  of 
events  as  is  described  in  the  bibhcal  story  of  the  Flood, 
but  he  well  may  be  surprised  at  the  sobriety  of  the 
account,  at  the  prominence  given  to  "the  breaking  up 
of  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep, "  and  at  the  assurance 
that  the  earth  is  no  more  to  be  destroyed  by  a  flood;  for 


GEOLOGICAL  THEORY  OF  THE  FLOOD  65 

these  characteristics  of  the  BibHcal  story  are  not  the 
natural  products  of  the  human  imagination,  but  show 
that  the  narrator  was  restrained,  either  by  personal 
knowledge  of  the  facts  or  by  the  guidance  of  divine 
inspiration."^ 

Turning  to  the  geologic  evidence  of  the  Deluge  found 
in  Europe  and  Asia,  Professor  Wright  says:  '' Longer 
and  wider  study  of  the  facts  of  surface  geology  reveals 
more  and  more  clearly  a  considerable  residuum  of 
phenomena  which  indicate  a  brief  post-glacial  submerg- 
ence, since  man's  advent,  of  a  large  part  of  Europe  and 
Asia.  "2  ''At  numerous  places  over  the  southern 
counties  of  England  and  on  the  south  side  of  Dover 
Strait  at  Sangatte,  near  Calais,  in  France,  there  are 
deposits  of  angular  gravel  bearing  no  relation  to  the 
present  drainage  systems  of  the  country,  and  containing 
palseoUthic  implements  and  the  bones  of  extinct  animals 
associated  with  prehistoric  man. "^  "The  first  expedi- 
tion [to  Asia]  was  undertaken  in  the  expectation  of 
finding  in  eastern  and  northern  Asia  signs  of  the  occupa- 
tion of  those  regions  by  glacial  ice  similar  to  those  which 
exist  so  abundantly  in  corresponding  latitudes  in  North 
America.  In  this  we  were  disappointed  ....  But 
in  place  of  glacial  phenomena  we  found  evidence  of  a 
recent  depression  of  the  area,  amounting  to  somewhere 
from  two  thousand  to  three  thousand  feet.  This  evi- 
dence largely  consists  in  the  distribution  of  loess  over 
China,  Central  Asia,  and  southern  Russia."^  "Baron 
Richthofen,  in  his  great  work  on  'China,'  maintained 
that  the  source  of  the  Chinese  loess  was  to  be  found  in 
the  desiccated  area  of  Central  Mongolia  now  occupied 
by  the  Desert  of  Gobi  [by  the  agency  of  the  wind]."^ 
"But  it  seems  necessary,  from  the   facts to 


66  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

believe  that  its  present  distribution  over  northeastern 
China  was  mainly  secured  by  the  agency  of  gradually 
receding  water,  the  presence  of  which  would  be  obtained 
by  a  temporary  general  depression  of  the  land,  amount- 
ing at  any  rate  to  several  hundred  feet. "^  ''But  what- 
ever doubts  might  be  raised  respecting  such  a  recent 
depression  of  land  as  we  have  supposed  in  China,  they 
cannot  well  exist  concerning  a  corresponding  depression 
on  the  other  side  of  the  great  central  Asiatic  plateau, 
facing  Siberia  and  Turkestan. "^  ''AH  these  things 
point  to  the  fact  that  in  those  world-wide  movements 
which  characterized  the  latter  part  of  the  Tertiary  and 
the  whole  of  the  Glacial  period,  there  was  a  brief  sub- 
sidence of  the  Asiatic  continent — Central  Asia,  perhaps, 
playing  see-saw  with  Northwestern  Europe  and  North- 
eastern America,  the  one  going  down  while  the  other 
went  up.  But,  however  that  may  be,  at  some  stage 
during  this  later  period  of  geological  instabihty,  a 
general  depression  of  Central  Asia  must  have  occurred 
to  account  for  the  phenomena  we  have  presented,  dis- 
tributing the  loess  in  the  peculiar  manner  indicated  and 
filling  the  central  depression  of  MongoUa  with  an  inter- 
ior sea. "3  "Man  undoubtedly  came  into  the  world 
before  the  unstable  equilibrium  accompanying  later 
Tertiary  time  and  the  whole  course  of  the  Glacial  epoch 
had  given  place  to  the  comparative  quiet  which  now 
prevails."^ 

Thus  is  seen  a  bringing  together  of  the  conclusion  of 
science  and  the  statements  of  Scripture  which  no  one 
could  have  foreseen  fifty  years  ago,  and  which  may  well 
give  pause  to  all  those  who  have  thought  there  could 
be  no  final  agreement  between  science  and  revelation. 


THE   DESTRUCTION   OF   SODOM   AND    GOMORRAH      67 

8.  The  geological  theory  of  the  destruction  of  the  cities 
of  the  Plain  has  also  been  very  exactly  confirmed  by 
the  examination  of  the  strata.  Professor  Emerson,  one 
of  our  most  eminent  geologists,  describes  the  region 
about  the  Dead  Sea  as  one  ''where  sulphur,  deposited 
by  many  hot  springs,  is  abundant  in  the  clay,  and  where 
bitumen  oozes  from  every  crevice  of  the  rock,  and  every 
earthquake  dislodges  great  sheets  of  it  from  the  bottom 
of  the  lake."^  A  bituminous  region,  a  great  stratum 
of  rock  salt  capped  by  sulphur-bearing  marls  and  con- 
glomerates cemented  by  bitumen,  an  explosion  of  pent- 
up  gases,  which  collect  in  such  geological  formations, 
blowing  the  burning  sulphur  high  into  the  air,  and  the 
waters  of  the  Jordan  coming  down  and  dissolving  the 
ruptured  rock-salt  stratum — all  this  provides  for  exactly 
what  the  Bible  describes  and  for  the  conditions  found 
there  today;  the  pillar  of  smoke  rising  up  to  heaven, 
the  rain  of  fire  and  brimstone  falHng  back  from  the 
blowing-off  crater,  and  the  catching  of  Lot's  wife  in  the 
cataclysm  and  her  incrustation  with  salt.  Professor 
Emerson  says  it  was  a  ''sinking  of  the  ground,  at  the 
time  when  geology  and  history  join,  which,  with  its 
earthquakes,  overthrew  the  cities  of  the  Plain  and 
caused  the  outpour  of  petroleum  from  the  many  fault- 
fissures  and  the  escape  of  great  volumes  of  sulphurous 
and  gaseous  emanation,  which,  ignited  either  spontane- 
ously, by  lightning,  or  by  chance,  furnished  the  brim- 
stone and  fire  from  heaven,  and  the  smoke  of  the  land 
going  up  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace  which  Abraham  saw 
from  the  plains  of  Judea.  "^ 

The  only  thing  which  the  Bible  account  adds  to  that 
which  may  be  seen  by  the  geologist  is  that  which  is 


68  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

shown  by  the  hand  which  draws  aside  the  veil  between 
the  seen  and  the  unseen.  The  scientist  here  sees  and 
writes  from  the  standpoint  of  materials  and  facts,  the 
Bible  writer  saw  and  wrote  from  the  standpoint  of 
divine  providence  over  the  materials  and  the  facts. 
The  veil  is  drawn  aside  in  the  Bible  account  and  we 
are  permitted  to  see  not  only  natural  phenomena  but 
providential  supervision  over  them.  A  sight  of  this 
latter  was  the  revelation  God  made  to  Abraham. 

9.  It  has  long  been  thought  that  there  might  be 
some  relation  between  the  mysterious  Hyksos  kings  of 
Egypt  and  the  patriarchs.  It  has,  indeed,  seemed  almost 
necessary  that  there  should  be  some  such  relationship, 
if  we  are  to  account  at  all  for  the  favorable  reception, 
even  royal  distinction,  given  the  patriarchs  by  these 
kings.  The  readiness  with  which  the  patriarchs  went 
down  into  Egypt  on  occasion,  as  though  their  going 
were  a  matter  of  course,  seems  also  to  call  for  some  such 
explanation  in  view  of  the  general  national  exclusive- 
ness  of  ancient  times  and  the  antipathy,  extreme  even 
in  that  age,  which  Egypt  always  manifested  to  an  influx 
of  foreigners.  The  reception  accorded  to  Abraham  in 
Egypt  and  later  to  Jacob  and  his  sons^  and  especially 
the  elevation  of  Joseph  the  slave  boy  to  be  prime  minis- 
ter, peremptorily  demand  either  the  belief  in  a  suitable 
historical  setting  for  the  stories  or  the  acknowledgement 
of  a  mythical  element  in  them.  Obscure,  insignificant, 
private  citizens  are  not  accorded  such  recognition  at  a 
foreign  and  unfriendly  court.  Some  have  been  conced- 
ing a  mythical  element  in  the  stories.  Professor  Barton 
discusses  the  question  with  great  learning  and,  while 
desiring  to  think  Abraham  an  historical  personage,  yet 
says:  "On  the  other  hand,  any  fair  estimate  of  the 


THE  HYKSOS  KINGS  AND  THE   PATRIARCHS  69 

bearing  of  archaeology  upon  the  Abrahamic  problem 
must  take  into  account  the  facts  brought  to  light  by 
archaeology  which  favor  the  theories  of  those  who 
believe  that  Abraham  was  a  moon-god.  The  name 
Abram,  of  which  Abraham  is  but  a  variant  form,  means, 
if  it  is  of  West-Semitic  origin,  '  exalted  Father. '  Bibli- 
cal traditions  connect  Abraham  with  Harran  and  Ur, 
seats  of  the  worship  of  the  moon-god.  Sin.  In  Baby- 
lonian mythology,  Sin  was  the  father  of  Shamash, 
the  sun-god,  and  of  Ishtar.  In  Babylonian  hymns  one 
of  the  most  frequent  epithets  of  Sin  is  'Father'  which 
in  Semitic  is  '  Ab. '  ' The  exalted  Father, '  if  Abraham's 
name,  fits,  it  must  be  confessed,  the  moon-god  theory. 
Sarah,  or  Sarai,  the  name  of  Abraham's  wife,  is  the 
Hebrew  equivalent  of  Saratu,  'Queen,'  an  epithet  of 
the  consort  of  the  moon-god  at  Harran,  and  Milcah, 
Abraham's  sister-in-law  (Genesis  ii,  29)  is  the  Hebrew 
equivalent  of  Malkatu,  the  name  of  the  consort  of  the 
sun-god,  and  perhaps  of  the  moon-god  also.  These 
facts  do  not  prove  Abraham  a  moon-god;  absolute  proof 
that  a  character  is  mythical  is  even  more  difficult  than 
to  prove  it  historical.  We  cannot,  however,  wonder 
that,  in  the  absence  of  proof  from  contemporary  sources 
that  Abraham  was  a  person,  such  fact  had  great  weight."^ 
H.  P.  Smith  thinks  ''we  have  no  really  historical 
knowledge  of  a  patriarchal  period  preceding  Israel's 
conquest  of  Canaan.  The  individuals,  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  are  eponyms — -personifications  of 
clans,  or  ethnological  groups — and  they  are  nothing 
more."^ 

Wellhausen  had  long  ago  said  that  Genesis  gives  us 
"no  historical  knowledge  of  the  patriarchs,  but  only 
of  the  time  when  the  stories  about  them  rose  in  the 


70  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Israelite  people:  this  later  age  is  here  unconsciously 
projected,  in  its  inner  and  outer  features,  into  hoar 
antiquity,  and  is  reflected  there  hke  a  glorified  image.  "^ 

But  critics  have  been  too  hasty  in  these  concessions 
to  the  insistent  claim  put  forth  for  a  mythological 
element  in  early  Bible  history.  The  archaeologists 
have  now  uncovered  to  view  such  appropriate  historical 
setting  for  the  patriarchal  stories  that  these  narratives 
no  longer  present  to  us  the  patriarchs  as  obscure, 
insignificant,  private  citizens,  nor  Zoan  as  a  foreign 
and  unfriendly  court.  The  presence  of  the  Semitic 
tongue  in  Hyksos  territory  has  long  been  known.  A 
quarter  of  a  century  ago  Brugsch  wrote:  ''The  Khar 
spoke  their  own  language — Phoenician — ^which  is  the 
only  foreign  tongue  mentioned  on  the  monuments  with 
a  distinct  reference  to  its  importance.  Whoever  lived 
in  Egypt  spoke  Egyptian,  whoever  lived  in  the  south 
had  to  speak  the  language  of  the  Nahasu,  or  dark- 
colored  people;  while  those  who  went  northward  to  the 
Asiatic  region  had  to  be  acquainted  with  the  language 
of  the  Phoenicians,  in  order  to  converse  at  all  intelligibly 
with  the  inhabitants  of  the  country.  "^  The  patriarchs 
would  have  Httle  or  no  difficulty  in  the  use  of  their  own 
language  in  that  part  of  Egypt  to  which  they  went. 

These  Phoenicians  were  very  important  in  Egypt. 
As  the  English,  the  Germans,  and  the  French  have  long 
done  the  foreign  business  of  China,  so  that  the  Chinese 
flag  has  scarcely  been  known  in  foreign  ports,  so  in  the 
old  days  of  Egypt,  from  before  patriarchal  times  until 
much  later,  Phoenicia,  the  mistress  of  the  sea  in  that 
age,  did  the  foreign  business  of  the  Egyptians,*  and  not 
until  later  times  did  the  Egyptian  standard  venture  into 
foreign  ports,  and  never  very  much.    What  more  natural 


THE  HYKSOS  KINGS  AND  THE   PATEIARCHS  71 

than  that  the  patriarchs  in  their  need  should  turn  at 
once  for  help  to  a  place  where  they  might  transact  their 
business  through  their  kinsmen? 

Then,  some  familiarity,  even  sympathy,  with  Semitic 
religion  is  strongly  to  be  suspected  from  the  interviews 
between  the  patriarchs  and  the  Hyksos  kings.  Joseph 
speaks  to  Pharaoh  of  ''God"  as  to  one  who  needed  no 
explanation  of  the  person  and  character  of  the  God  of 
the  patriarchs,  and  Pharaoh  responds  understandingly. 
He  does  not  ask:  "What  God  has  done  this?"  and  does 
not  say:  "thy  God,"  but  "forasmuch  as  God  hath 
showed  thee  all  this, "  not  Ptah  or  Atum,  as  usual  among 
Egyptians,  but  "God." 

The  relation  between  the  patriarchs  and  the  Hyksos, 
thus  indicated  by  so  many  incidental  touches  in  the 
sacred  narrative,  has  been  cleared  up  with  a  good  deal 
of  definiteness  through  the  discovery  in  1906,  by  Pro- 
fessor Petrie,^  of  the  great  fortified  camp  at  Tell  el- 
Yehudiyeh,  and  the  question  is  now  in  the  main  set  at 
rest.  In  the  lower  stratum  of  debris  was  found  the 
fortified  camp  of  invaders.  The  abundance  of  Hyksos 
scarabs  in  this  stratum  and  the  almost  total  absence  of 
all  others  mark  the  camp  as  certainly  a  Hyksos  camp.^ 
The  original  defenses  were  built  with  the  long  sloping 
outer  wall  which  indicates  the  use  of  the  bow  for  defense.' 
Finally,  the  name  Hyksos,  Egyptian  Haq  Shashu, 
"Bedouin  Princes,"  brings  out  sharp  and  clear  the 
picture  of  which  we  have  for  a  long  time  had  glimpses, 
of  the  Hyksos  as  wandering  tribes  of  the  desert,  of 
"upper  and  lower  Ruthen;*  i.  e.,  Syria  and  Palestine 
and  northern  and  western  Arabia,  "bow  people,"  as 
the  Egyptians  called  them,  their  traditional  enemies  as 
far  back  as  pyramid  times,^  who  pushed  in  from  the 


72  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

East,  made  a  lodgment  in  Egypt,  usurped  the  reins  of 
government  and  were  on  the  throne  when  the  patriarchs 
came.^ 

Now,  why  should  not  the  patriarchs  have  had  a  royal 
reception  among  these?  They  were  themselves  the 
heads  of  wandering  tribes  of  upper  and  lower  Ruthen, 
in  the  tongue  of  the  Egyptians,  Haq  Shashu  ''Bedouin 
Princes. "  Among  princes,  a  prince  is  a  prince  no  matter 
how  small  his  principality.  So  Abraham,  the  Bedouin 
Prince,  was  accorded  princely  consideration  at  the 
Bedouin  court  in  Egypt;  Joseph,  the  Bedouin  slave,  be- 
came again  the  Bedouin  Prince  when  the  wisdom  of  God 
with  him  and  his  rank  by  birth  became  known;  and 
Jacob  and  his  other  sons  were  welcomed  with  all  their 
followers  and  their  wealth  as  a  valuable  accession  to  the 
court  party,  always  harassed  by  the  restive  and  rebellious 
native  princes.  This  does  not  prove  racial  identity 
between  the  Hyksos  and  the  patriarchs,  but  indicates 
a  very  close  tribal  relationship.  There  is  nothing  to 
prove  that  all  Bedouin  were  Semities.  Nor  does  this 
discovery  identify  Abraham  or  either  of  the  other  patri- 
archs individually  in  history,  but  it  does  take  away  every 
suspicious  appearance  of  a  mythological  element  in  the 
narrative  of  the  reception  accorded  the  patriarchs  in 
Egypt-  and  harmonizes  completely  with  the  theory  of 
some  such  relationship  subsisting  between  the  patri- 
archs and  the  Hyksos  kings. 


CHAPTER  VII 

Theories  not  Affecting  the  Historicity  or  Integ- 
rity OF  Scripture  Discredited 

Having  sufficiently  illustrated  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters  critical  theories  not  affecting  the  historicity 
or  integrity  of  Scripture  which  have  been  corroborated 
by  the  results  of  archaeological  research,  we  proceed 
now  to  examine 

II.    THEORIES  discredited 

Some  long-cherished  theories  not  affecting  the  histo- 
ricity or  integrity  of  Scripture  have  been  discredited 
by  archaeological  evidence. 

1.  Abraha7n  in  his  wanderings  formerly  made  a  very 
pathetic  picture  in  all  eyes.  A  godly  man,  because  of 
his  godliness,  was  pictured  as  leaving  behind  him  native 
land,  settled  goverment,  the  light  of  civilization,  familiar 
laws  and  customs,  and  the  tongue  of  childhood.  To 
all  this  was  added  the  deprivation  and  hardship  and 
dangers  attendant  upon  a  pioneer  among  a  half-bar- 
barous people,  in  a  strange  land.  The  last  four  hundred 
years,  during  which  Europe  and  America  have  both 
been  torn  by  the  separations  and  the  deprivations  and 
the  sorrows  of  emigration,  have  prepared  a  sympathetic 
world  to  pity  such  as  Abraham  was  pictured  to  be. 
Much  of  historical  imagination  and  of  pulpit  eloquence 
has  been  wrought  into  the  amplification  of  the  portrayal 
of  this  hardship  and  loneliness. 

73 


74  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  first  pilgrim  father  of  the  faith,  called  of  God 
and  sent  upon  a  great  mission,  stands  and  will  ever 
stand  one  of  the  most  striking  and  inspiring  figures  in 
all  history,  but  the  pathos  of  emigration  to  a  strange 
land  which  has  enveloped  the  story  has  almost  wholly 
evaporated. 

Palestine  in  the  days  of  Abraham  was  a  part  of  the 
Babylonian  empire.  The  familiar  Hammurabi  laws, 
though  not  codified  until  after  Abraham's  emigration, 
threw  about  Abraham  their  protection  in  the  West  as  in 
the  East.^  "Abram  the  Hebrew  "^  came  into  a  land  in 
which,  of  all  places  on  earth,  the  Hebrew  tongue  was  at 
home.  If  semi-nomadic  life  was  quite  in  vogue  in  the 
land  of  the  Amorite,  it  was  no  strange  state  or  novel 
experience  for  Abraham,  for  he  only  lived  there  the  life 
he  brought  with  him.  He  came  not  as  a  lone  emigrant 
to  a  Bedouin  experience,  but  moved  about  as  a  Bedouin 
Prince,  and,  on  occasion,  put  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
men  of  his  "trained  servants,  born  in  his  own  house,"' 
into  the  field  armed  for  battle,  if  battle  there  should  be. 
Such  was  the  life  of  the  day  in  the  West  land  of  the 
Great  Sea.  Then  the  method  of  writing  and  the  literary 
language  of  the  land  were  the  Babylonian  script  and 
the  Babylonian  tongue.  And  though  the  sovereignty 
of  Babylonia  was  somewhat  uncertain  and  insecure  at 
the  time,  the  jealous  enemies  on  the  southwest,  the 
Hyksos  dynasty  of  Egypt,  were  themselves  ''Bedouin 
Princes"  who  were  ready  to  accord  Abraham  a  royal 
welcome,  and  a  safe  retreat  from  famine. 

Thus  the  pathetic  picture  of  a  pioneer  career  in  a 
dangerous  land  has  grown  dim  and  dimmer  until  at  last 
it  has  faded  out  completely  in  the  ever-increasing  light  of 
contemporary  history  brought  out  by  Babylonian  and 


MYSTERIOUS   CHARACTER    OF   MELCHIZEDEK  75 

Palestinian  discoveries.  At  the  same  time,  Abraham, 
the  pilgrim  father  of  the  faith,  has  loomed  greater  and 
greater. 

2.  Then  there  is  Melchizedek,  High  Priest  of  mystery, 
'^without  father,  without  mother,  without  descent, 
having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life.  "^ 
Beautiful  theories  concerning  him  have  been  much 
disturbed,  yet  without  affecting  in  any  way  the  use 
made  of  his  strange  character  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  or  the  theological  conceptions  there  founded 
upon  that  character. 

"What  a  host  of  pious  winged  imaginings  have  been 
let  loose  by  commentators,  in  all  ages,  in  explanation 
of  this  strange  personage,  Melchizedek.  ''The  opinion 
of  the  ancient  Jews  and  Samaritans,  and  general  tradi- 
tion, that  Melchizedek  was  Shem,  is  most  elaborately 
supported  by  the  editor  of  Calmet."^  Origen  thought 
he  was  an  angel.  He  "of  whom  neither  father  nor 
mother  nor  pedigree  stands  recorded  in  holy  Scripture"' 
has  been  the  usual  interpretation  from  the  Fathers  down 
to  modem  times.  Dwight,  the  American  editor  of 
Meyer  on  Hebrews,  thinks  ''when  it  is  said,  therefore 
that  Melchizedek  was  without  father  and  mother,  and 
that  he  had  neither  beginning  nor  end  of  life,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  writer  is  not:  that  Melchizedek  as  a  man 
differed  from  all  other  men,  having  no  descent  from 
ancestors  and  existing  always;  but  that,  in  respect  to 
his  priestly  office,  he  did  not  depend  on  the  tracing  of  a 
genealogy,  as  the  Levitical  priests  did,  but  has  his 
priesthood  'continually  abiding.'"*  Finally,  Dr.  Mar- 
cus Dods  says  of  Melchizedek:  "Perhaps  even  in  his 
own  time,  there  was  none  who  could  point  to  the  place 
where  first  he  was  cradled,  nor  show  the  tent  round 


76  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

which  first  he  played  in  his  boyhood  nor  hoard  up  a 
single  relic  of  the  years  of  the  man  that  had  arisen  to  be 
the  first  man  upon  earth  in  those  days, "  and  that  ''there 
emerges  from  an  obscure  Canaanite  valley,  a  man  nearer 
to  God  than  Abraham  is.  "^ 

The  mystery  around  the  king  of  Salem  has  not  yet  all 
been  dispelled,  but  the  Tell  Amarna  tablets  reveaP  to 
us  a  line  of  kings  about  the  middle  of  the  sojourn  of 
Israel  in  Egypt  holding  the  scepter  at  Jerusalem  only  by 
the  authority  of  the  king  of  Egypt.  They  were  of 
unique  title,  disclaiming  any  hereditary  rights  in  the 
crown,  saying,  "It  was  not  my  father  and  it  was  not 
my  mother  who  established  me  in  this  position,  but 
it  was  the  mighty  arm  of  the  king  himself  who  made 
me  master  of  the  lands  and  possessions  of  my  father." 
This  title,  over  the  exact  translation  of  which  there  has 
been  much  learned,  technical  wrangling,  occurs  not  once, 
only,  but  seems  to  have  been  required  at  every  formal 
mention  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  king.  This  does  not 
fully  illumine  all  the  mystery  of  Melchizedek  and  his 
strange  priesthood,  it  does  not  identify  him  individually, 
but  it  does  suggest  very  pertinently  an  exceedingly 
natural  and  simple  explanation,  and  it  is  not  easy  to 
escape  the  conviction  that  it  points  in  the  direction  in 
which  .a  full  understanding  of  this  mysterious  personage 
lies. 

3.  The  old  and  generally  accepted  system  of  Biblical 
chronology  is  passing  away.  Biblical  chronology  has  been 
vindicated  as  a  real  chronology,  a  system  accurately 
paralleled  by  the  chronological  system  of  ancient  Egypt. ^ 
But  the  theory  of  chronology  long  current  and  still 
vigorously  advocated  by  many  (strange  to  say  more 
vigorously  by  those  who  hold  the  chronology  of  the 


ASSUMED  SYSTEM  OF  EPOCHAL  CHEONOLOGY    77 

Bible  to  be  very  inaccurate  than  by  those  who  beheve 
it  to  be  a  true  and  correct  chronology), — this  theory 
has  been  much  modified,  if  not  utterly  discredited,  by 
both  archaeological  and  ethnological  research.  The 
history  of  the  race  and  the  evidence  from  the  debris  of 
ruined  cities  imperatively  demand  more  time  than  that 
theory  of  the  chronology  of  the  world  allows,  and  the 
vast  number  of  dates  produced  by  archaeological  inscrip- 
tions and  manuscripts  show  beyond  question  that  the 
chronology  of  that  age  was  not  constructed  with  the 
mathematical  rigidity  of  the  nautical  almanac.  What- 
ever may  have  been  the  system  and  method  of  chronology 
in  use  in  early  Biblical  history,  it  certainly  was  not  the 
same  as  our  epochal  chronology  based  upon  exact 
astronomic  time.  The  early  chronologies  of  the  Orient 
were  usually  annahstic,  oftimes  synchronistic,  but  very 
seldom  epochal.  The  first  and  usually  the  only  intent 
of  present-day  chronology  is  to  record  the  flight  of  time; 
ancient  systems  often  introduced  a  moral  element. 
Events  rather  than  time  were  recorded  and  the  time 
in  which  nothing  was  done  and  the  man  who  did  nothing 
were  apt  to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  Sometimes 
events  were  not  simply  chronicled  as  now  in  uncom- 
promising order,  but  were  arranged  symmetrically, 
and  sometimes  the  visional  conception  of  events,  which 
sees  things  in  order,  in  perspective  and  in  proportion, 
yet  without  strict  regard  to  the  length  of  time  interven- 
ing, the  method  found  in  Biblical  prophecy,  was  also 
used  in  writing  history.  Certain  it  is  that  ancient 
Oriental  thought  regarded  man's  relations  to  life  as  far 
more  important  than  his  relation  to  time,  a  more  deeply 
moral  conception  of  chronology  than  ours. 


78  THE  DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE   MONUMENTS 

In  the  light  of  research  into  antiquity,  the  rigidity 
of  the  astronomical  theory  of  chronology  must  give 
way  to  a  more  flexible  system  in  keeping  with  the  days 
when  there  were  no  clocks  or  almanacs  and  people  did 
not  think  in  the  terms  of  these  later  inventions.  All 
early  events  of  the  Bible  history,  of  course,  took  place  at 
exact  dates  b.  c,  and  it  may  some  day  be  possible  to 
dertermine  those  dates,  though  that  is  exceedingly 
improbable,  but  even  that  would  not  furnish  any  evi- 
dence whatever  that  the  early  sacred  writers  wrote  from 
the  standpoint  of  an  epochal  conception  of  chronology 
and  what  they  say  about  the  time  of  events  must  be 
judged  according  to  their  ideas  of  chronology  and  not 
according  to  ours. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Theories  Affecting  the  Integrity  or  Historicity 
OF  Scripture 

Thus  far  in  the  history  of  the  application  of  archseo- 
logical  evidence  to  critical  problems,  we  have  remained 
upon  neutral  territory  occupied  in  harmony  by  all 
classes  of  critics,  where  theories,  whether  confirmed  or 
discredited,  do  not  affect  the  integrity  or  historicity 
of  Scripture.  We  are  now  to  pass  the  frontier  and  en- 
ter upon  disputed  ground,  as  we  consider:  secondly, 
theories  affecting  the  integrity  or  historicity  of 
Scripture.  Many  theories  proposing  to  take  Scrip- 
ture at  other  than  its  face  value;  i.  e.,  reconstructive 
theories  (which  necessarily,  from  their  sinister  presup- 
position that  the  face  value  of  Scripture  is  not  the  true 
value,  as  well  as  from  their  destructive  method,  attack 
the  integrity  or  historicity  of  Scripture),  have  been 
utterly  discredited  by  archaeological  evidence  and  in 
some  cases  abandoned  by  those  who  held  them. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  this  is  universally  ad- 
mitted to  be  the  case.  There  are  many  confident  asser- 
tions that  it  is  otherwise.  Driver  in  his  latest  critical 
utterance,  the  Ac^rfendato  the  Seventh  Edition  of  Gene- 
sis,^ refers  with  evident  satisfaction  to  a  treatise  "on  the 
true  bearings  of  archaeology  on  the  Old  Testament,  an 
excellent  and  lucid  article  by  Stanley  A.  Cook,  in  the 
Expositor,  June,  1908,  especially  pp.  529  ff,  534  £f 
where  it  is  shown,  among  other  things,  that  the  idea, 

79 


80         THE    DECIDING    VOICE    OF    THE    MONUMENTS 

still  current  in  some  quarters,  that  archseology  has 
overthrown  many  of  the  conclusions  of  literary  and 
historical  criticism  has  been  based  simply  upon  a 
misconception  of  the  facts."  With  like  self-satisfac- 
tion he  sends  the  reader  to  the  inaugural  address  of  a 
professor  at  Manchester  University,  A.  S.  Peake,  who 
concludes  concerning  the  results  of  archseology  that 
"it  remains  true,  that,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament 
scholarship  is  concerned,  it  has  not  confirmed  a  single 
position  doubted  by  sober  criticism."^ 

One  of  the  ''quarters"  above  referred  to  is  now  to  be 
heard  from.  And  it  is  proposed  not  simply  to  allow 
assertion  to  stand  over  against  assertion.  Instead,  the 
examination  of  a  few  instances  of  the  effect  which 
archseology  has  had  upon  ''positions  doubted  by  sober 
criticism"  will  enable  every  reader  to  judge  for  himself 
what  are  the  real  facts  in  the  case.  Let  us  see  whether 
or  not  archseology  has  "confirmed  a  single  position 
doubted  by  sober  criticism"  and  so  discredited  any  of 
the  reconstructive  theories. 

I.    THEORIES   DISCREDITED 

Of  such  cases  let  us  consider  some  theories  which  to 
most  minds  brought  to  the  examination  of  the  evidence 
would  seem  to  have  been  discredited. 

1.  The  ignorance  of  the  Patriarchal  age  was  once  a 
frontier  fortress  in  criticism  which  frightened  away  all 
literary  pretensions  beyond  that  limit.  This  theory 
of  ignorance  in  the  patriarchal  age  was  not  held  by  all 
advocates  of  a  reconstructive  criticism  but  it  was  held 
by  some  and  at  one  time  was  quite  the  vogue,  though 
there  are  a  good  many  today  who  seem  to  wish  that 


THE  IGNORANCE  OF  THE  PATRIARCHAL  AGE  81 

time  to  be  forgotten.  The  interests  of  truth,  however, 
sometimes  require  unpleasant  things  to  be  remembered 
and  unpleasant  facts  to  be  cited.  This  is  one  such  case, 
for  there  are  those  among  the  humbler  followers  of  the 
more  expert  critics  who  still  assert  with  vehemence 
that  no  such  time  ever  was. 

Let  us  then  see  the  facts.  Von  Bohlen  scoffed  at 
the  idea  of  the  ''undisciphned  horde  "^  of  Israel  possess- 
ing a  knowledge  of  letters. 

Reuss  says:  ''Now,  and  this  is  needful  immediately 
at  this  stage  of  our  information,  it  is  permitted  and 
with  good  reason,  to  ask  whether  to  the  extent  here 
presumed  they  knew  how  to  speak  in  Moses'  t)me  of 
the  art  of  writing  among  the  Israelites,  and  of  the  other 
thereto  pertaining  arts.  Granted  even  that  this  one 
was  instructed  in  the  wisdom  of  Egypt,  according  to  the 
tradition,  the  Canaanitish  writing  of  which  the  Hebrew 
made  use  as  far  as  history  reaches,  was  yet  unknown 
there.  Shall  he  be  said  to  have  invented  the  same? 
Moreover,  no  man  writes  any  books  whatever  but  for 
men  who  can  read  and  read  well.  These  thoughts  ought 
not,  however,  to  be  set  up  as  entirely  decisive.  It  may 
be  that  the  theory  of  a  widely  spread  Old-Semitic  culture 
is  justified,  still  the  peculiar  character  of  the  law  and 
this  collection  together  give  the  decision  on  the  question 
of  the  origin.  "2 

Dilhnann  says:  "But  also  the  legal  portion  of  the 
Pentateuch  cannot  be  from  Moses,  neither  written  by 
him  nor  delivered  orally  and  written  down  by  another. 
And  aside  from  the  fact,  that  so  extended  a  literary 
production  at  the  very  rise  of  the  people  of  Israel  is  not 
believable,  and  points  much  more  to  a  time  when  the 
arts  of  writing  and  reading  were  widely  diffused  there 


82  THE  DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

appear  also  in  the  legal  as  in  the  narrative  portion  so 
many  repetitions,  variations  ....  and  contradictions 
of  the  legal  principal  in  addition  to  so  great  formal  or 
redactional  dissimilarities  ....  and  likewise  a  series 
of  book-divisions  belonging  together  in  what  concerns 
the  contents  and  language  and  yet  distinguished  from 
one  another  that  even  on  that  account  a  single  source 
of  this  law-writing  is  not  to  be  thought  of .  "^ 

Driver  says:  "It  is  not  denied  that  the  patriarchs 
possessed  the  art  of  writing. '  '^  This  would  seem  to  be  a 
concession  which  carried  with  it  the  whole  contention,  in 
view  of  the  persistent  Hebrew  tradition  concerning  the 
patriarchal  literature.  For,  given  the  body  of  Uterature 
attributed  by  the  Hebrew  people  to  the  patriarchal  age, 
and  conceded  that  the  patriarchs  had  letters^  one 
naturally  expects  that  the  concession  prepares  the  way 
for  acceptance  of  at  least  some  portion  of  the  literature. 
So  that  one  is  hardly  prepared  for  the  remark  with  which 
Driver  immediately  draws  back  from  the  effect  of  the 
concession  he  has  made  declaring  that  the  possession 
of  a  literature  by  Israel  "is  a  mere  hypothesis  for  the 
truth  of  which  no  positive  ground  can  be  alleged." 
That  is  a  very  convenient  conclusion  having  distinct 
regard  for  Driver's  critical  theory  that  the  patriarchs  had 
no  literature!  but  is  it  quite  warranted?  Thoreau  once 
said  that  sometimes  circumstantial  evidence  is  very 
persuasive,  as  "when  one  finds  a  trout  in  the  milk." 
It  is  possible  to  suppose  that  the  milkman  by  mistake 
may  have  taken  the  trout  pail  when  he  went  out  to 
milk,  but  the  people  who  "would  be  satisfied  with  that 
supposition  are  not  many.  So  it  is  with  the  supposition 
of  the  patriarchs  having  the  art  of  writing  but  no  litera- 
ture, being  writers,  so-  to  speak,  but  never  writing  any- 


THE  IGNORANCE  OF  THE  PATRIARCHAL  AGE  83 

thing.  This  looks  like  a  trout  in  the  milk.  People 
must  have  a  little  time  in  which  to  learn  to  write,  but 
where  have  they  long  had  letters  without  leaving  some 
record  behind  them?  Most  people  who  do  not  have 
a  theory  imperatively  demanding  the  opinion  that  the 
patriarchs  had  no  literature  will  be  likely  to  think  with 
Dr.  Orr  that  "ii  such  knowledge  was  possessed  by  Moses 
and  those  about  him,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it 
would  be  used."^ 

That  the  theory  of  the  ignorance  of  the  patriarchal 
age  has  been  absolutely  abandoned  by  every  one  hardly 
needs  to  be  stated.  Indeed,  as  we  shall  immediately 
see,  radical  criticism,  as  well  as  the  most  conservative, 
is  built  upon  the  hterary  character  of  the  patriarchal 
age  as  a  foundation  fact,  although  this  has  often,  with 
the  most  marvelous  inconsistency,  been  lost  sight  of, 
and  by  some  positively  denied.  For  it  is  at  the  finding 
of  the  law  in  the  days  of  Josiah  that  the  two  lines  of 
criticism  diverge.  But  whether  the  law  was  found  in 
good  faith  or  ''found"  (with  the  euphemistic  quotation 
marks  instead  of  the  disagreeable  charge  of  forgery), 
it  depended  for  its  acceptance  upon  an  unquestioning 
belief  by  the  people  in  a  literary  history  of  the  nation 
reaching  back  to  the  days  of  Moses.  Without  that 
belief,  the  book  of  the  law  could  not  have  been  accepted 
by  the  people  as  from  their  national  hero.  The  knowl- 
edge which  the  people  in  Josiah's  day  possessed  con- 
cerning their  literary  history  can  hardly  be  questioned. 
They  certainly  knew  whether  or  not  they  had  been  a 
literary  people.  Belief  in  such  a  literary  history  could 
have  arisen  only  out  of  an  unbroken  history  of  the 
actual  possession  of  a  literature.  Such  a  tradition  may 
have  grown  with  the  years,  but  could  not  arise  before 


84  THE   DECIDING   VOICE    OF   THE   MONUMENTS 

the  literary  career  of  the  nation  began.  And  since  the 
tradition  ran  back  to  Moses  unquestioningly  for  the 
acceptance  of  this  document  of  Josiah's  time,  the 
Hterary  career  of  the  nation  certainly  did  not  begin 
after  the  Mosaic  age. 

This  belief  in  a  literary  history  of  Israel  back  to  the 
days  of  the  patriarchs,  whether  held  by  modern  critics 
or  by  the  people  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  is  fully  sustained 
by  archaeological  research.  Evidence  has  been  found 
of  the  establishment  of  a  postal  system  in  Babylonia 
extending  to  its  Palestine  province  in  the  days  of  Naram- 
Sin,^  about  seventeen  hundred  and  fifty  years^  before 
the  time  of  Abraham.  Professor  Sayce  says:  ''There 
was  an  excellent  postal  service  connecting  Canaan  with 
Babylonia  which  went  back  to  the  days  of  Naram-Sin, 
and  some  of  the  clay  bullae  which  served  as  stamps  for 
the  official  correspondence  at  that  period  are  now  in 
the  Museum  of  the  Louvre."  But  a  postal  system 
implies  many  things.  That  it  requires  the  art  of  writ- 
ing is  self-evident,  and  a  very  little  thought  will  make  it 
equally  certain  to  any  one  that  it  calls  for  a  wide  diffusion 
of  the  art.  The  necessity  for  a  few  government  mes- 
sages and  the  sending  of  an  occasional  manuscript  from 
one  learned  author  to  another  will  hardly  account  for 
the  establishement  of  a  general  postal  system.  It  is 
only  some  four  centuries  since  the  demands  of  the 
modern  world  brought  about  the  establishment  of  such 
a  postal  system.  Even  modern  literary  history  existed 
among  English-speaking  people  well-nigh  a  century  after 
the  •  Renaissance  before  the  establishment  of  such  a 
general  postal  system. 

It  is  known,  also,  that  many  of  the  patriarchal  cus- 
toms conformed  stric^lvto  written  law.    Palestine  in  the 


SEMI-BARBAROUS   PATRIARCHAL   CIVILIZATION        85 

Abrahamic  age  was  still  dominated  by  Babylonian 
literary  influences  and  in  some  good  measure  was  under 
Babylonian  political  control.  The  Code  of  Hammurabi 
exactly  provides  for  much  of  the  conduct  of  the  people 
which  is  recorded  of  those  days;  e.  g.,  inheritance  by  a 
servant  from  a  childless  master,  death  by  fire  as  a  penalty 
for  whoredom,  the  giving  of  a  handmaid  by  her  mistress 
to  her  husband  as  a  secondary  wife,  and  the  dismissal  of 
such  secondary  wife  for  acting  spitefully  and  contemptu- 
ously toward  the  principal  wife. 

Finally,  the  discovery  of  the  Tell  Amarna  tablets^ 
in  1887  turned  the  full  light  of  day  upon  this  subject. 
These  tablets  reveal  the  literary  conditions  in  Palestine 
about  midway  between  Abraham  and  Moses.  The 
widest  diffusion  of  letters  is  indicated.  All  sorts  of 
people  are  found  writing  letters:  governors  and  court 
officers,  petty  officials,  private  citizens,  ladies  and  ser- 
vants. When  there  is  added  to  all  this  the  overwhelm- 
ing evidence  from  recent  excavations  of  the  general 
culture  and  refinement  of  patriarchal  Palestine,  the 
case  for  the  theory  of  patriarchal  ignorance  becomes 
ridiculous.  No  wonder  some  people  desire  to  forget  it 
and  to  have  everybody  else  forget  that  it  ever  was  a 
theory. 

While  the  exact  state  of  patriarchal  civilization  is 
not  yet  fully  known,  any  theory  of  ignorance  and  ilhter- 
acy  in  that  age  and  land  is  impossible. 

2.  The  theory  of  the  nomadic,  semi-barbarous  condition 
of  Palestine  and  the  impossibility  of  high  moral  and 
religious  ideas  among  the  patriarchs  before  the  Exodus, 
though  most  closely  connected  with  the  theory  of  the 
ignorance  of  patriarchal  times,  demands  separate  notice 
because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  motif  of  the  current 


86  THE  DECIDING  VOICE    OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

reconstructive  criticism,  namely,  the  evolutionary  view 
of  Israel's  history  and  religion.  This  theory  is  essen- 
tial to  that  view.  It  is  true  enough,  as  sometimes 
urged  by  those  who  hold  the  evolutionary  view  of 
Israel's  history  and  religion,  that  the  evolutionary 
theory  has  provision  for  the  ebb  and  the  flow  and  for 
eddies  and  that  any  given  cataclysmic  events  in  human 
history,  which  are  actually  found,  do  not  necessarily 
overthrow  the  theory  of  evolution  in  history.  But 
the  use  of  this  principle  of  the  theory  of  evolution  is 
only  practicable  in  the  examination  of  accepted  facts. 
When  it  is  proposed  to  reject  the  only  known  state- 
ment of  facts  as  incorrect  and  to  proceed  to  a  recon- 
struction, as  in  the  case  of  the  early  history  of  Israel, 
or  when  it  is  proposed  to  construct  history  for  a  period 
that  is  blank  or  very  obscure  in  human  annals,  then 
this  device  of  the  evolutionary  theory  for  meeting 
emergencies  becomes  impracticable.  Nobody  knows 
where  to  put  in  the  eddies.  Attempts  to  put  them  in 
are  either  guesswork  or,  worse,  the  arbitrary  placing 
of  them  to  sustain  a  preconceived  theory.  The  Bible 
account  on  its  face  presents  what  would  be,  according 
to  the  evolutionary  theory  of  Israel's  history,  a  flow 
in  the  current  of  human  history.  But  it  does  not  suit 
the  advocates  of  that  theory  to  have  a  flow  of  the  tide 
at  that  place,  so  they  have  insisted  upon  a  semi-bar- 
barous condition  of  Palestine  with  universally  low 
religious  ideas  among  the  patriarchs  as  the  proper 
history  for  that  period.  Thus,  as  Dr.  Orr  well  says 
at  this  point,  ''the  criticism  rests  upon  the  theory,  not 
the  theory  on  the  criticism."^  So,  as  has  been  stated, 
the  theory  of  the  semi-barbarous  condition  of  patri- 


SEMI-BAKBAROUS   PATRIARCHAL   CIVILIZATION        87 

archal  Palestine  is  essential  to  the  evolutionary  view 
of  Israel's  history. 

But  let  us  see  exactly  how  advocates  of  this  view  of 
Israel's  history  put  the  case  for  patriarchal  Palestine. 
Kuenen,  in  speaking  of  the  more  important  objections 
to  the  historical  character  of  the  patriarchal  narratives, 
says:  ''They  are  taken,  in  the  first  place,  from  the 
rehgious  ideas  which  are  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs. 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  are  not  only  the  servants 
of  Jehovah,  but  are  also  not  inferior  to  the  prophets  of 
the  Vlllth  century  B.C.  in  pureness  of  religious  insight 
and  inward  spiritual  piety.  I  must  crave  permission 
to  assume  here  provisionally  what  will  be  proved 
further  on,  that  this  representation  is  utterly  without 
foundation  in  history."^ 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  this  is  a  theory  held  only  by 
earlier  critics  but  entirely  abandoned  now.  Professor 
George  Adam  Smith,  in  reply  to  Professor  Eerdmans, 
who  combats  the  nomadic  view  of  the  patriarchal  life, 
thinks  that  against  any  considerable  advancement  in 
civilization  in  the  patriarchal  life  may  be  noted  ''the 
fact  that  the  Israelites  during  their  long  residence  on 
the  borders  of  Egypt  were  not  at  all  influenced  by 
the  Egyptian  civilization" (! )  and  that  "even  if  Dr. 
Eerdmans'  appreciation  of  the  evidence  of  the  narra- 
tives were  accepted,  namely  that  they  imply  the  most 
advanced  steps  of  the  semi-nomadic  stage,  the  question 
is  still  to  be  faced  whether  these  features  of  the  narra- 
tive are  not  (as  Professor  Robertson  Smith,  and  the 
other  scholars  whom  he  names,  maintain)  reflections 
from  the  monarchical  period  of  Israel's  history  when 
the  myths,  the  traditions  of  the  patriarchs,  and  "the 


88  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

book  of  the  Covenant"  received  their  literary  form, 
whatsoever  more  ancient  elements  they  may  embody."^ 
This  theory  of  civilization  and  culture  in  Palestine  of 
patriarchal  times,  though  of  far  less  importance  to 
some  other  critics,  has  been  held,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
by  nearly  all,  as  well  as  adopted  by  all  conmaentators, 
and  very  inconsistently  indeed,  even  by  those  who 
have  at  the  same  time  held  to  the  historicity  of  the 
Biblical  account  of  the  life  story  and  the  religious 
culture  of  the  patriarchs. 

The  theory  is  now  completely  gone  by  the  board. 
There  has  been  in  the  last  few  years  a  revolution  in 
the  minds  of  archaeologists  concerning  the  civilization 
of  Palestine  in  the  patriarchal  age.  There  have  been, 
indeed,  some  feeble  attempts  to  explain  away  this 
revolution,  attempts  comparable  to  those  made  by 
some  would-be  historians  in  these  days  to  explain  away 
the  American  Revolution  of  1776.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that,  ere  long,  those  who  are  so  wrapped  around  with 
the  folds  of  their  critical  theories  as  to  be  impervious 
to  any  light  from  without,  if  there  be  yet  any  such, 
will  at  least  hear  enough  of  what  is  going  on  to  induce 
them  to  come  out  and  see  for  themselves.  Sellin^ 
found  the  earliest  wall  and  cistern-work  at  Taanach, 
dating  from  a  period  before  the  Exodus,  to  be  the 
best  of  all  in  that  vast  ruin  of  two  millenniums  of 
human  history,  and,  in  itself  considered,  compared 
with  such  work  by  Romans  and  by  moderns,  really 
of  a  very  superior  character.  The  engineering  skill 
on  the  defenses  at  Gezer'  was  of  a  high  order,  while 
that  on  the  waterworks,  which  was  able  to  locate  a 
hidden  spring  far  below  the  city,  direct  the  location 


SEMI-BARBAROUS   PATRIARCHAL   CIVILIZATION        89 

of  an  opening  within  the  walls,  guide  the  workmen 
to  drive  a  twenty-eight-foot  tunnel  obliquely  down 
through  solid  rock  a  distance  of  niney-six  feet  to  the 
exact  source  of  the  water,  though  it  will  not  rank  in 
magnitude  and  in  romantic  elements  with  the  boring 
of  a  spiral  tunnel  from  both  sides  to  meet  in  the  middle 
of  the  Alps  or  from  the  east  bank  and  the  west  bank 
of  the  Hudson  to  meet  under  the  middle  of  the  river, 
is  yet  of  exactly  the  same  kind  of  skill.  In  the  words 
of  one  scholar,  1  one  of  the  most  acute  and  candid  of 
archaeological  thinkers,  *' Obviously,  we  are  far  from 
the  centuries  of  barbarism,  and  thus  the  discovery 
impinges  upon  those  religious  problems  with  which 
modern   thinkers   are   occupied." 

The  distinguishing  characteristic  of  Egyptian  art  is 
its  graphic  character  the  ability  of  its  artists  to  convey 
exact  ideas  of  the  objects  depicted.  They  are  fettered 
by  many  conventionalities  which  mar  their  work,  but 
they  are  cartoonists  of  the  first  rank.  This  gives  us 
valuable  assistance  in  understanding  the  civilization 
and  culture  of  the  peoples  they  depict.  In  the  tomb 
of  Anta  at  Deshasha^  an  attack  upon  a  Canaanite  city 
is  pictured.  The  Egyptian  soldiers  are  seen  raising  a 
scaling  ladder  to  the  top  of  the  wall  of  a  beleagured 
city.  A  comparison  between  the  length  of  the  ladder 
and  the  height  of  the  men  raising  it  shows  it  to  be 
between  forty  and  forty-five  feet  long.  So  the  alarm- 
ing description  given  by  the  spies'  of  cities  walled  up 
to  heaven  becomes  not  a  frightened  exaggeration  but 
rather  a  sober  statement,  when  we  set  beside  it  the 
well-known  fact  that,  visually,  the  atmospheric  heavens 
seem  to  all  of  us  to  be  just  above  the  top  of  the  highest 


90  THE  DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE   MONUMENTS 

familiar  objects  until  we  are  otherwise  instructed.  The 
report  of  the  spies  was  a  description,  in  popular  lan- 
guage of  the  day,  of  the  exact  state  of  things  in  Canaan. 

Last  of  all,  the  richest  booty  which  Thothines  III 
describes  at  Karnak,^  in  his  account  of  a  Palestinian 
raid,  agrees  exactly  in  its  representation  of  luxurious 
refinement  with  the  evidence  of  the  civihzation  of  that 
age  furnished  by  these  examples  of  engineering  skill. 
Chariots  plated  with  gold  or  chased  with  silver,  chairs 
of  cedar  and  ebony  inlaid  or  gilded  with  gold,  a  sword 
of  bronze  and  a  helmet  of  gold  inlaid  with  lapis  lazuli, 
and  richly  embroidered  stuffs.  These  antiquities  could 
not  now  be  duplicated  from  all  the  museums  in  the 
world. 

All  these  things  in  addition  to  the  mass  of  evidence 
against  the  ignorance  of  the  patriarchal  age,  i.e.,  refine- 
ment in  things  intellectual,  overwhelmingly  sustains 
the  opinion  of  Professor  W.  Max  Miiller,  vigorously 
expressed  in  discussion  in  the  American  Oriental  Society, 
1909,  that  ''the  civilization  of  Palestine  in  the  patri- 
archal age  was  fully  equal  to  that  of  Egypt." 

Such  a  civilization  removes,  as  much  as  civilization 
can,  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  high  moral  and  re- 
ligious ideas.  It  does  not  provide  for  such  ideas,  but 
it  is  quite  sufficient  to  discredit  the  evolutionary  theory 
of  Israel's  history  at  this  point.  The  assumption  that 
the  patriarchs  could  have  no  higher  moral  and  religious 
ideas  than  those  about  them  is  the  fundamental  and 
essential  assumption  of  the  evolutionary  theory  of 
revelation,  an  assumption  which  requires  that  the  reve- 
lation must  always  be  from  within  mankind  and  never 
is  truly  external  and  objective.  The  Bible  narrative 
plainly  ascribes  high  moral  and  religious  ideas  to  the 


EVOLUTION   OF   ISEAEL's   CULTURE  91 

patriarchs.  Thus  the  theory  necessitates  a  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  narrative.  But  this  necessity  of  the  theory 
is  no  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  the  reconstruction. 
There  is  as  yet  no  archaeological  evidence  of  these  high 
moral  and  religious  ideas  during  the  patriarchal  age, 
but  the  abundant  evidence  of  the  introduction  of  such 
ideas  at  the  period  of  the  conquest  just  at  the  close  of 
the  patriarchal  age  raises  a  very  strong  presumption 
in  favor  of  the  moral  and  rehgious  ideas  attributed 
by  the  Bible  to  the  patriarchs.  This  part  of  the  sub- 
ject is  of  sufficient  importance  to  receive  here  separate 
consideration. 

3  The  theory  of  the  evolution  of  Israel's  religious  history 
chiefly  from  a  Palestinian  origin  and  environment.  The 
comparative  study  of  religions  is  a  very  interesting 
and  helpful  auxiliary  branch  of  theology.  It  is  quite 
permissible,  indeed,  to  classify  the  religion  of  the  Bible 
among  other  religions  in  such  scientific  study.  But 
to  conclude  that  all  religions  thus  classifiable  are  alike 
in  origin,  in  growth,  and  in  authority  is  as  unscientific 
as  to  conclude  that  all  schools  of  painting  are  alike 
in  inception,  attainment,  and  value  because  their  works 
can  be  systematically  arranged  in  the  same  art  gallery 
and  classified  in  the  same  technical  work  on  art;  or  to 
conclude  that  all  birds — robins,  blue  jays,  and  buzzards 
— have  equal  claim  upon  our  admiration  because  they 
are  arranged  in  orderly  cages  in  the  zoological  garden 
and  described  systematically  with  beautifully  illumi- 
nated plates  in  the  same  scientific  work  on  ornithology. 
Classification  is  made,  and  can  only  be  made,  by  means 
of  resemblances  and  differences,  as  much  by  differences 
as  by  resemblances,  and,  indeed,  according  to  some  one 
chosen  principle  of  comparison.     Thus  classification  is 


92  THE   DECIDING   VOICE    OF  THE   MONUMENTS 

not  conclusive  as  to  source  or  course  or  meaning,  and 
sometimes  reveals  little  or  nothing  on  any  of  these 
subjects.  All  depends  upon  the  principle  of  compari- 
son which  may  have  ben  selected,  and  it  is  itself  a 
presupposition  in  the  mind  of  the  investigator.  The 
yield  of  the  process  of  classification  is  that  of  the  presti- 
digitator who  gets  out  of  the  box  exactly  what  he  puts 
into  it  and  nothing  more.  What  a  mess  a  student  of 
comparative  religion  in  the  year  4000  a.d.,  by  the 
method  now  used  in  this  evolutionary  theory  of  the 
development  of  Israel's  religion,  will  make  of  the  reli- 
gious history  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  or  of  Madagascar 
or  of  Uganda  in  this  year  of  our  Lord  1912,  without 
knowledge  of  the  work  of  the  Christian  missionaries! 
Having  postulated  the  evolutionary  principle  as  govern- 
ing all  change,  and  having  classified  all  things  by 
resemblances  and  differences,  what  a  delightful  experi- 
ence he  will  have  getting  the  Christianity  of  the  present 
day  out  of  the  horrible  and  revolting  heathenism  of 
these  lands!  So  with  the  study  of  the  religion  of 
Israel.  What  if  there  has  been  some  message  from 
without,  some  divine  missionary  from  above  to  this 
world  of  sin  in  the  days  of  old?  Is  there  anything  in 
the  processes  of  the  science  of  comparative  religion 
under  the  guidance  of  the  principle  of  evolution  to 
discover  it?  Does  not  evolution,  the  adopted  principle 
of  change  in  that  study,  forbid  the  discovery  of  it? 
And,  if  in  any  way  it  be  discovered,  is  it  not  a  trouble- 
some abnormality?  At  this  point  the  comparative 
study  of  religions,  as  at  present  conducted,  breaks 
down  utterly.  In  fact,  its  advocates  have  overworked 
it,  have  asked  it  to  carry  burdens  for  which  it  is  not 
fitted,  to  do  work  it  cannot  do. 


EVOLUTION   OF   ISRAEL'S   CULTURE  93 

Kuenen  says:  "To  what  one  may  call  the  universal, 
or  at  least,  the  common  theory,  that  religion  begins 
with  fetishism,  then  develops  into  polytheism,  and  then, 
but  not  before,  ascends  to  monotheism — that  is  to 
say,  if  this  highest  stage  be  reached — to  this  rule  the 
Semites  are  no  exception."^  Thus  it  is  proposed  through 
the  use  of  the  methods  of  the  comparative  study  of 
religions  to  account  for  everything  in  the  religion  of 
the  Bible  and  that  without  inquiring  whether  or  not 
there  were  any  missionaries;  indeed,  on  the  contrary, 
by  postulating  among  the  presuppositions  evolution 
as  the  dominant  principle  of  change,  and  by  assuming 
that  there  were  no  missionaries  and  no  message  from 
without.  One  might  as  well  try  to  account  for  our 
present  progress  in  mechanical  things  without  the 
inventor. 

But  the  facts  as  brought  to  light  by  archaeological 
research  are  against  this  application  of  the  method  of 
the  comparative  study  of  religions.  One  could  as 
easily  make  the  fetishism  of  East  Africa  cross  over  the 
line  at  the  year  1890  and  produce  the  Christianity  of 
Uganda  in  the  year  1912  as  make  the  revolting  rehgion 
of  Gezer  pass  the  line  of  the  conquest  period  and 
produce  the  religious  practices  and  religious  spirit  of 
the  centuries  following.  The  bones  of  children  under 
foundations  there  and  the  collection  of  burials  of  little 
children  under  eight  days  of  age  without  the  inter- 
mingling of  other  burials,  and  near  the  sacred  place,  is 
horrible  in  its  suggestiveness.  Little  ones  do  not  from 
natural  causes  all  die  at  such  an  age  and  be  buried 
together  by  themselves  at  the  place  of  sacrifice.  From 
this  nightmare  of  child  sacrifice,  probably  of  the  first- 
born, the  most  degraded  and  degrading  of  all  revolting 


94  THE  DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

worship  in  the  world,  we  turn,  as  from  darkness  to 
dawn,  toward  the  religious  conditions  and  religious 
spirit  following  the  conquest  period.  Did  the  dark- 
ness develop  the  dawn?  We  note  at  once  the  rapid 
decline  of  this  horrible  child  sacrifice,  and,  not  instead 
of  it  but  contemporaneous  with  its  decline,  the  appear- 
ance of  the  beautiful  symbolism  of  the  extinguished 
lamp  between  two  bowls  in  the  burials  of  the  Jewish 
period.  Are  these  the  indications  of  a  religion  that 
came  up  or  of  a  religion  that  came  down?  It  was  of 
these  things  that  Professor  George  Adam  Smith  said: 
''Mr.  Macalister's  researches  are  not  more  illustrative 
in  anything  than  in  the  exhibition  they  afford  of  the 
primitive  religious  customs  which  Israel  encountered 
upon  their  entry  into  Palestine,  and  which  persisted 
in  the  form  of  idolatry  and  the  moral  abominations 
that  usually  accompanied  this  up  to  the  very  end  of 
the  history  of  Israel  upon  the  land.  He  has  shown  us 
upon  this  single  site  the  Canaanite  idolatry  in  all  its 
force,  in  all  its  consequences  upon  life,  and,  as  we  can 
guess,  its  consequences  upon  character;  and  he  has 
shown  us  besides  how  constant  were  the  pressure  and 
example  of  Egypt  upon  this  part  of  the  land  at  least, 
and  how  frequent  were  the  pressure  and  example  of 
another  great  heathen  power — Assyria — and  how, 
finally,  Hellenism  came  in  and  added  to  these  other 
heathen  forces  one  more  within  the  compass  of  that 
small  territory  on  which  Israel  was  settled.  We  real- 
ize, then,  through  work  like  Mr  Macalister's  what  the 
purer  religion  of  Israel  had  to  contend  with — what  it 

had  to  struggle  against  all  that  time We 

have  been  told  that  monotheism  was  the  natural  off- 
spring of  desert  scenery  and  of  desert  life.  But  it  was 
not  in  the  desert  that  Israel's  monotheism  developed 


ANACHRONISMS  95 

and  grew  strong  and  reached  its  pure  forms.  It  was 
in  this  land  of  Palestine,  of  which  Gezer,  with  its  many 
centuries  and  its  many  forms  of  idolatry,  is  so  typical 
an  instance.  When  we  contemplate  all  these  systems — • 
specimens  of  which  Mr  Macalister's  work  brings  home 
to  us — when  we  contemplate  these  systems,  we  are 
surely  the  more  amazed  at  the  survival,  under  their 
pressure  and  against  their  cruelty,  of  a  so  much  higher 
and  an  ethical  religion.  Surely  it  is  only  a  divine 
purpose,  it  is  only  the  inspiration  of  the  Most  High 
which  has  been  the  cause  "^ 

4  There  has  been  a  general  application  of  the  theory 
of  anachronisms  by  many  critics  to  the  traditional  view 
of  Scripture;  indeed,  to  the  Scripture's  own  view  of 
itself  when  taken  at  its  face  value.  It  has  been  asserted 
that  there  is  in  Scripture  a  systematic  representation 
of  earlier  events  in  a  light  only  furnished  by  much  later 
times  and  the  throwing  back  of  peoples  and  events 
to  places  much  too  early  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

Fripp  says:  "The  legend  of  Abraham  and  Lot  culmi- 
nates in  the  story  of  Lot's  daughters.  To  what  period 
shall  we  assign  the  national  animosity  reflected  here? 
....  We  should  not  be  far  wrong  in  ascribing  that 
story  of  Lot's  daughters  to  a  period  soon  after  Moab's 
revolt  against  Ahaziah  when  the  contempt  of  David's 
reign  for  the  old  border  enemies  had  changed  into 
fierce  hatred. "2  Robertson  says:  ''Similarly  the  stories 
of  Jacob  and  Laban  reflected  the  international  relation- 
ships.    On  Israel's  N.  E.  border  was  Aram 

The  powerful  Omri,  whose  fame  is  preserved  in  Assyrian 
and  Moabite  inscriptions,  put  him  (Aram)  to  a  kind 
of  tribute  (Genesis  xx  34)  and  Ahab,  if  we  are  to 
believe  similar  records,  had  to  supply  him  with  a 
contingent  against  a  new  and  yet  more  terrible  enemy 


96  THE  DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

in  the  far  East.  Hence  the  legend  of  Jacob's  respect 
for  his  father-in-law."^ 

This  theory  of  the  general  anachronistic  character 
of  the  early  history  in  the  Bible  is  so  bound  up  together 
with  the  theory  of  the  ignorance  of  the  patriarchal 
days,  the  theory  of  the  semi-barbarous  condition  of 
Palestine  in  patriarchal  times,  and  the  theory  of  the 
evolution  of  Israel's  later  civilization  and  culture  out 
of  these  low  beginnings,  that  with  the  refutation  of 
those  theories  scarcely  anything  needs  to  be  said  in 
reply  to  this.  It  cannot  be  successfully  maintained 
without  their  support  and  must  soon  of  necessity  fail 
without  them.  For  when  the  Hght  supposed  to  belong 
only  to  later  times  is  found  to  belong  in  good  measure 
to  those  earUer  times,  the  motive  as  well  as  the  oppor- 
tunity for  alleging  anachronisms  is  taken  away. 

But  this  failure  of  the  theory  of  general  anachronism 
in  early  Bible  history  does  not  prevent  the  alleging  of 
special  instances  of  anachronism,  each  of  which  must 
be  considered  on  its  own  merits. 

Edom,  for  example,  has  been  said  to  be  mentioned 
too  early  in  the  narrative.^  Von  Bohlen  says:  ''The 
Pentateuch  contains  many  allusions  to  later  events 
more  especially  in  those  having  reference  to  some  of 
the  neighboring  nations,  from  which  all  the  hostile 
fabrications  of  Genesis  concerning  the  Phoenicians,  the 
Edomites,  the  Moabites,  and  others  would  seem  to 
have  been  subsequently  derived."^  But  the  Egyptian 
papyrus  Anastasia  represents  an  officer  of  SetiMer- 
emptah  II  of  the  XlXth  dynasty,  about  the  time  of 
the  Exodus,  as  saying  in  an  official  report  to  the  govern- 
ment that  the  people  of  Edom  desired  to  pasture  their 
flocks  in  Goshen.  They  had  thus  early  found  their 
way  clear  across  the  Sinai  peninsula,  which  argues 


ANACHRONISMS  97 

their  number  and  importance  at  that  early  age.  Miiller 
says:  ''An  officer  reported  concerning  the  permission 
'that  the  Bedouin  tribe  of  the  Edomites  passed  the 
frontier  guard  near  Thuku  (Succoth)  to  the  lakes  of 
Pithom  of  Meremptah  in  Thuku,  in  order  to  pasture 
their  beasts  upon  the  land  of  Pharaoh.'  We  perceive 
from  this  the  great  age  and  wide  dispersion  of  the 
Edomite  tribes."^ 

Chabas  also  identified  the  name  Edom  in  the  story 
of  the  travels  of  Sinuhit  who  lived  away  back  in  the 
Xllth  dynasty.  The  identification  is  not  so  sure  as 
that  in  the  papyrus  Anastasia,  but  is  yet  probably 
correct. 2 

Moab  was  long  unidentified,  indeed,  up  to  very 
recent  times,  was  unknown  outside  of  the  Bible  until 
far  down  the  stream  of  history,  and  doubt  was  cast 
upon  its  existence  at  so  early  a  time  as  its  first  mention 
in  the  Bible.  But  Moab  also  has  been  identified.' 
It  occurs  in  an  inscription  of  Rameses  II  around  the 
base  of  the  third  great  statue  west  of  the  gateway  of 
the  north  pylon  of  the  temple  of  Luxor.  The  inscrip- 
tion records  events  near  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  The 
name  Moab  in  the  inscription  is  identified  beyond  all 
question.  Comparatively  few  foreign  names  are  so 
clearly  and  unmistakably  written  in  Egyptian.  Exami- 
nation of  the  list  of  names  in  which  it  occurs  and  of 
the  account  of  the  expedition  to  which  its  subjugation 
is  attributed,  clearly  places  Moab  in  Ruthen,  the  Egyp- 
tian name  for  Syria  and  Palestine  and  northern  and 
western   Arabia. 

So  frequently  has  the  charge  of  anachronism  been 
refuted  by  archaeology  that  it  is  not  now  so  often  heard 
as  formerly. 


CHAPTER  IX 

Theories  Affecting  the  Integrity  or  Historicity 
OF  Scripture — Continued 

The  most  important  of  all  the  theories  advanced 
by  criticism  affecting  the  integrity  or  historicity  of 
Scripture  yet  remains  to  be  examined: 

5.  The  theory  of  the  mythical  or  legendary  character 
of  the  early  narratives  of  the  Bible.  One  of  the  assump- 
tions of  the  comparative  study  of  religions  by  the 
popular  evolutionary  method,  if  put  into  syllogistic 
form,  runs  thus:  Myths  are  found  as  an  embellish- 
ment in  the  color  scheme  of  nearly  all  ancient  religions: 
the  Bible  contains  one  of  the  ancient  religions:  ergo, 
the  early  narratives  of  the  Bible  are  myths.  Of  course, 
the  advocates  of  this  mythical  theory  never  themselves 
put  it  thus  into  the  strait- jacket  of  formal  logic.  If 
they  did,  they  would  immediately  reject  it.  Yet  this 
is  the  exact  logical  form  of  the  assumption  of  myths 
in  early  Bible  history,  or  of  the  argumentation,  if  one 
may  dignify  it  with  such  a  name,  which  concludes 
that  things  which  may  be  classified  together  according 
to  one  principle  of  comparison  are  alike  in  other  respects. 
Notwithstanding  the  illogical  method  of  such  reason- 
ing, the  mythical  character  of  the  early  portions  of 
the  Bible  has  had  ardent  advocates,  partly  from  their 
overlooking  this  formal  fallacy  and  partly  from  a 
belief  on  their  part  that  there  is  archaeological  evidence 
to  sustain  such  a  theory. 

98 


MYTHICAL   CHARACTER    OF    BIBLICAL   NARRATIVES       99 

This  mythical  view  is  clearly  presented  by  Schultz 
in  this  passage:  ''The  result  may  be  given  in  outline 
as  follows:  Genesis  is  the  book  of  sacred  legend,  with 
a  mythical  introduction.  The  first  three  chapters  of 
it,  in  particular,  present  us  with  revelation-myths  of 
the  most  important  kind,  and  the  following  eight  with 
mythical  elements  that  have  been  recast  more  in  the 
form  of  legend.  From  Abraham  to  Moses  we  have 
national  legend  pure  and  simple,  mixed  with  a  variety 
of  mythical  elements  which  have  become  almost  unrec- 
ognizable. From  Moses  to  David  we  have  history  still 
mixed  with  a  great  deal  of  the  legendary,  and  even 
partly  with  mythical  elements  that  are  no  longer 
distinguishable.  From  David  onward  we  have  history 
with  no  more  legendary  elements  in  it  than  are  every- 
where present  in  history  as  written  by  the  ancients."^ 

Certainly  it  will  be  conceded  that  the  examination 
of  the  facts  in  each  case  of  alleged  myth  in  the  Bible, 
as  these  facts  are  made  known  to  us  by  archaeological 
research,  will  be  a  fair  way  to  test  this  theory  of  the 
mythical  character  of  early  Old  Testament  history.^ 

The  record  of  the  four  kings  in  Genesis  xiv,  has 
been  the  object  of  most  persistent  attacks  for  the 
purpose  of  demonstrating  the  mythical  character  of 
the  narrative.  The  kings  have  been  called  ''petty 
sheiks  of  the  desert,"  and  their  names  "etymological 
inventions,"  and  the  general  historicity  of  the  narrative 
thoroughly  discredited  by  many.  Noldeke  argued  most 
elaborately  for  the  untrustworthiness  of  the  Biblical 
narrative  at  this  point.  As  his  criticism  of  the  account 
of  the  invasion  by  the  four  kings  will  come  up  later 
for  more  complete  presentment,'  very  brief  references 
to  it  will  suffice  here.     In  his  Untersuchungen'^  by  a 


100  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

long  process  of  argumentation  he  arrives  at  the  con- 
clusion that  this  portion  of  the  history  in  Genesis,  xiv, 
is  a  ''free  creation  throughout,"  and  the  personality 
of  Melchizedek  he  etherealizes  into  a  ''poetic  figure." 

This  view  of  the  story  of  the  four  kings  thus  so 
prominently  set  forth  in  the  early  history  of  criticism 
by  Noldeke  has  been  carried  forward  and  has  held  its 
place  down  along  the  whole  course  of  the  critical  dis- 
cussion, and  is  even  held  by  some  to  this  day. 

Wellhausen  refers  to  this  view  of  Noldeke  with  such 
approval  that  he  thinks  the  historicity  of  the  narrative 
"seems  to  have  received  its  death-blow  from  him." 
"Noldeke's  criticism  (of  Genesis  xiv)  remains  unshaken 
and  unassailable:  that  four  kings  from  the  Persian  Gulf 
should,  'in  the  time  of  Abraham'  have  made  an  incursion 
into  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  that  they  should  have  on  this 
occasion  attacked  five  kinglets  on  the  Dead  Sea  littoral 
and  have  carried  them  off  prisoners,  and  finally  that 
Abraham  should  have  set  out  in  pursuit  of  the  retreating 
victors,  accompanied  by  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
men-servants,  and  have  forced  them  to  disgorge  their  prey 
— all  these  incidents  are  sheer  impossibihties.  They  are 
not  the  more  trustworthy  from  the  fact  that  they  are 
with  shrewd  premeditation  placed  in  a  world  which 
had  passed  away.""^ 

Delitzsch  in  his  Genesis  gives  a  very  comprehensive 
summary  of  opinions  concerning  the  fourteenth  chapter 
of  Genesis  which  is  in  part  as  follows:  "Ed.  Meyer 
is  of  like  opinion  [with  Noldeke]  only  that  he  expresses 
himself  much  more  depreciatingly.  Hitzig  sees  in  the 
expedition  of  Chedorlaomer  which  falls  in  a  fourteenth 
year,  a  reflection  thrown  back  into  antiquity  from  2 
Kings  xviii,  13,  and  explains  chapter  xiv  in  general  as 


MYTHICAL   CHARACTER   OF   BIBLICAL   NARRATIVES    101 

later  tradition,  which  could  first  be  portrayed  in  the 
condition  set  forth  after  that  Salem  was  made  holy 
through  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah  ....  Between 
such  race-legend  and  literary  romance  is  only  a  wavering 
border-line. 

''The  new  Pentateuchal  criticism  which  takes  its 
first  impulse  from  Reuss,  considers  chapter  xiv,  as  one 
of  the  youngest  parts  of  Genesis,  first  incorporated  in 
the  latest  redaction,  upon  which  the  expression  uttered 
concerning  Melchizedek,  'without  father,  without 
mother,  without  descent,'  is  permitted  to  cling.  And 
Ed.  Meyer  goes  further  and  concludes  that  the  parti- 
culars of  the  account  are  completely  unhistorical."^ 

Eduard  Meyer,  in  his  Geschichte  des  Alterthums,  has 
this  striking  passage:  "Concerning  this  extension  of 
the  Elamite  power,  we  have  additional  knowledge  from 
an  entirely  different  source.  In  the  Pentateuch,  Gen- 
esis xiv,  an  account  is  presented  which  uses  not  any 
of  the  written  sources  employed  elsewhere,  but  mani- 
festly is  taken  out  of  an  elsewhere  unheard-of  book 
of  legends  (like  e.g.,  Judges,  xix,  21).  According  to 
language  and  content  it  can  at  the  earliest  have  been 

composed  in  or  after  the  Babylonian  exile 

That  that  late  phantasy  is  without  any  historical  con- 
tent, does  not  need  to  be  said."^ 

Jeremias,  in  his  account  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
is  filled  with  the  mythological  idea  of  what  he  calls 
the  "deluge  of  fire,"  claiming  the  story  to  be  an  imita- 
tion of  the  account  of  the  great  Deluge.  He  says: 
"In  the  whole  account  of  the  judgment  upon  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  as  it  is  presented,  adheres  the  motive 
of  a  deluge  of  fire  which  the  history  sets  in  contrast 
with  the  Deluge. 


102  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

"(1)  The  destruction  comes  upon  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah, which  once  resembled  paradise  (xiii,  10;  "hke 
Egypt"  is  a  gloss)  on  account  of  the  misdeeds  of  men. 

"(2)  A  just  man  with  his  family  is  saved,  as  Noah 
was  rescued  in  the  Deluge. 

"(3)  A  mountain  is  assigned  as  a  refuge,  (xix,  17) 
in  reality  the  refuge  is  the  city  Zoar. 

"(4)  The  one  chosen  for  salvation  is  laughed  at. 

''(5)  The  just  God  is  importuned  that  he  should 
only  strike  the  evil  doer  with  the  judgment,     xviii,  25."^ 

Professor  Barton,  in  an  elaborate  and  learned  dis- 
cussion of  Abraham  and  Archaeology,  says:  ''Archse- 
ology  so  far  from  having  as  yet  established  the  early 
composition  and  historical  character  of  Genesis  xiv, 
seems,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  to  furnish  a  series  of  facts 
which  are  best  explained  by  supposing  that  that  chapter 
was  composed  by  a  late  midrashic  writer  who  had,  it 
is  true,  access  to  some  Babylonian  data,  partly  late 
and  partly  early,  but  did  not  know  how  to  use  them. 
He  lived  so  far  from  the  times  that  he  had  lost  in  part 
the  correct  historical  perspective.  Archaeology  thus 
confirms  the  critical  results  reached  by  Kuenen,  Well- 
hausen,  Cornill,  Budde,  Bacon,  Briggs,  Wildeboer,  Ball, 
Carpenter,  and  Harford-Battersby."^ 

But  the  four  kings  have  arisen  from  the  dead  in 
archaeological  history.  There  is  still  some  dispute 
about  the  identification  of  certain  of  them,  but  the  con- 
federation has  appeared  in  Babylonian  history  of  that 
time  and  such  a  suzerainty  over  Palestine  as  is  implied 
in  the  narrative  of  Genesis  xiv,  is  established  beyond 
reasonable  question.  The  evidence  in  full  to  sustain 
this  opinion  is  too  long,  technical,  and  involved  to 
be  given  here,  but  may  be  seen  by  consulting  the 


MYTHICAL   CHARACTER   OF   BIBLICAL   NARRATIVES    103 

references  given  below. ^  The  conclusions  at  which 
distinguished  Assyriologists  have  arrived  may  be  given 
here.  Hommel  says:  ''The  narrative  in  Genesis  xiv 
differs  in  some  of  its  details  not  only  from  the  account 
which  we  glean  from  contemporary  inscriptions,  but 
also — and  to  a  far  greater  extent — -from  the  later  Baby- 
lonian tradition;  it  introduces  into  the  history  of  Ham- 
murabi as  presented  in  the  ancient  monuments  an 
entirely  new  episode  (concerning  Melchizedek)  which 
fits  into  the  political  circumstances  of  the  period  like 
a  missing  fragment,  and  thus  completes,  and  throws 
a  most  valuable  light  on,  the  knowledge  of  this  remote 
epoch  which  we  gather  from  the  cuneiform  records. 
The  theory  that  the  names  of  the  kings,  together  with 
the  fact  that  Chedorlaomer  had  once  led  an  expedition 
into  'the  countries  of  the  West,'  were  transferred  from 
Babylonian  records  in  post-exilic  times,  and  that  a 
campaign  on  the  part  of  the  four  allied  kings  as  far  as 
Ailat  and  Kadesh-barnea  was  then  invented,  is  abso- 
lutely inadmissable.  The  material  handed  down  to  us 
in  Genesis  xiv  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  genuine 
and  ancient  tradition. "^ 

Professor  Clay  sums  up  his  opinion  thus:  "In  the 
light  of  what  has  been  discovered,  Professor  Noldeke 
and  his  line  of  followers  naturally  have  changed  a 
few  of  their  views.  Certain  scholars  now  seem  to 
think  that,  as  some  of  these  theories  are  no  longer 
held,  by  reason  of  what  is  now  known,  there  is  no 
longer  any  occasion  to  refer  to  them.  But  inasmuch 
as  a  large  number  are  still  maintained,  some  of  which 
are  exceedingly  far  reaching,  and  are  based  on  highly 
insufficient  grounds  or,  in  fact,  no  data  whatever,  the 
general  public  has  a  right  to  know  what  has  become  of 


104  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  others  which  were  advanced  by  scholars  of  repute, 
as  well  as  to  consider  the  theories  which  are  still  promul- 
gated. 

''Weighing  carefully  the  position  taken  by  the  critics 
in  the  light  of  what  has  been  revealed  through  the 
decipherment  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  we  find 
that  the  very  foundations  upon  which  their  theories 
rest,  with  reference  to  the  points  that  could  be  tested, 
totally  disappear.  The  truth  is  that  wherever  any 
light  has  been  thrown  upon  the  subject  through  the 
excavations,  their  hypotheses  have  invariably  been 
found  wanting.  Moreover,  what  remains  of  their  theo- 
ries is  based  upon  purely  speculative  grounds."^ 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  and  opinions,  the  man  who 
now  dared  to  call  the  four  kings  "petty  sheiks  of  the 
desert"  or  their  names  ''etymological  inventions"  would 
be  an  object  of  ridicule.  A  place  in  history  is  found 
for  these  kings,  and,  though  all  is  not  yet  known  con- 
cerning them,  they  have  ceased  to  be  objects  of  reason- 
able suspicion.  What  exactly  may  be  their  historical 
character  and  importance  is  yet  a  legitimate  subject 
for  discussion,  not  so,  any  longer,  the  question  of  their 
legendary  or  mythical  character. 

The  Hittites,  also,  have  come  in  for  a  good  share 
of  suspicion  in  the  search  for  legends  and  myths  in 
the  early  Bible  history.  On  the  projecting  wing  of  the 
south  wall  of  the  temple  of  Amen  at  Karnak,  is  found 
the  Egyptian  copy  of  a  great  treaty  of  peace  between 
Rameses  II  and  the  Kheta.^  This  inscription  has  long 
been  known,  and  believed  by  many  to  refer  to  the 
Hittites,  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  but 
until  the  reading  of  this  inscription  and  one  by  Seti 
I,  the  father  of  Rameses  II,  a  little  earlier,'  known 


MYTHICAL   CHARACTER    OF    BIBLICAL   NARRATIVES    105 

nowhere  else  in  literature,  except  where  drawn  from 
the  account  in  the  Bible. 

Later,  Babylonian  inscriptions  from  the  early  dynas- 
ties^  onward  and  the  Tell  Amarna  letters  from  Palestine 
mention  a  people  called  the  '' Khatti."  Here,  also,  there 
was  thought  by  many,  perhaps  most,  scholars  to  be  a 
reference  to  the  mysterious  Hittites  of  the  Biblical 
narrative.  2 

But  grave  doubts  had  been  raised  by  critics  and 
archaeologists  concerning  this  identification.  Some  had 
even  gone  so  far  as  to  say,  though  not  often  for  publi- 
cation, that  ''no  such  people  as  the  Hittites  ever  ex- 
isted." Budge,  in  his  History  of  Egypt,  says:  "The 
Kheta,  who  are,  no  doubt,  the  people  referred  to  by 
the  Assyrians  under  the  name  of  Khatti,  have  been 
identified  with  the  Hittites  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  on 
insufficient  grounds,"^  and  again,  "In  passing  it  must 
be  stated  that  the  commonly  accepted  identification 
of  the  Kheta  with  the  Hittites  of  the  Bible  is  as  yet 
unproved,  since  it  rests  only  upon  the  similarity  between 
the  Hebrew  name  Heth,  and  the  Egyptian  name  Kheta'* 

The  inhabitants  of  old  Troy  were  no  more  in  need 
of  a  Schliemann  to  justify  their  claim  to  a  right  oi 
real  existence  and  a  place  in  history,  than  the  Hittites 
were  of  some  friendly  discoverer  to  deliver  them  from 
the  serious  suspicion  of,  to  say  the  least,  legendary 
accretions  of  character,  if  not  even  of  unreality.  In 
1906  the  deliverer  came.  Winckler^  uncovered  the 
ruins  at  Boghatz-keui  and  brought  to  light,  in  addition 
to  architectural  ruins  and  a  treasury  of  inscriptions 
in  Hittite  hierogljrphs,  also  tablets  in  cuneiform  script. 
Among  these  latter  was  found  the  Hittite  copy  of  the 
same  treaty  of  peace  between  Rameses  II  and  the 


106  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

"Kheta."  What  these  tablets,  when  fully  understood, 
may  yet  reveal  concerning  the  Hittites  and  what  vast 
and  amazing  additions  to  learning  may  come  with  the 
decipherment  of  the  Hittite  hieroglyphs  themselves, 
an  event  which  certainly  cannot  much  longer  be  de- 
layed, no  one  can  tell.  Already  there  is  this  important 
result;  no  one  is  saying  now  that  ''no  such  people  as 
the  Hittites  ever  existed." 

So  one  by  one  the  so-called  myths  and  legends  of 
the  Bible  are  being  given  their  place  in  sober  history 
and  the  ghostly  heroes  are  walking  in  common  flesh 
and  blood  among  the  other  real  heroes  of  life.  As 
this  process  goes  on  (and  the  list  of  illustrations  might 
be  extended  to  nearly  every  patriarchal  narrative)  there 
is  being  supplied  that  complete  historical  setting  into 
which  the  narratives  of  the  Bible  fit  with  perfect  natu- 
ralness. But  legends  and  myths  do  not  receive  such 
confirmation  and  do  not  so  fit  into  an  historical  setting. 
That  they  do  not  do  so  is  one  of  the  characteristics 
which  mark  them  as  myths  or  legends. 

That  the  very  persons  and  events  described  in  the 
narrative  have  not  in  every  case  been  found  has  very 
little  of  the  importance  sometimes  attributed  to  that 
fact.  Driver  discussing  the  expedition  of  the  four 
kings,- Genesis  xiv,  says:^  ''Noldeke  never  questioned 
.  .  .  the  general  possibility  at  this  time  of  an  expe- 
dition being  sent  from  the  far  East  into  Palestine 
[which,  however,  Noldeke  did  question]^  His  argu- 
ment consisted  in  pointing  out  various  historical  im- 
probabilities attaching  to  the  details  of  a  particular 
expedition;  and  archaeology  can  overthrow  this  argu- 
ment only  by  producing  evidence  that  this  expedition, 
with  the  details  as  stated  in  Genesis  xiv,  actually  took 


MYTHICAL    CHARACTER    OF    BIBLICAL    NARRATIVES    107 

place.  And  this,  up  to  the  present  time  (June,  1909) 
archaeology  has  not  done."  Surely  to  overthrow  such 
an  argument  it  is  only  necessary  to  supply  such  histori- 
cal setting  as  will  relieve  the  ''improbabilities"  to  which 
Driver  refers. 

Such  objections  to  the  inadequacy  of  archaeological 
evidence  because  of  the  failure  to  produce  individual 
persons  and  events,  when  such  complete  historical  set- 
ting is  furnished  as  removes  every  suspicion  of  improba- 
bility from  the  narrative,  too  much  resemble  attempts, 
so  often  made  in  our  courts,  and  alas!  too  often  success- 
fully made,  to  carry  a  case  upon  some  technicaUty, 
when  it  is  impossible  to  raise  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of 
either  judge,  jury,  or  the  public  concerning  the  main 
issue. 

Considering  the  countless  millions  of  persons  and 
events  in  those  ancient  millenniums,  the  wonder  is 
that,  among  the  comparatively  small  number  mentioned 
in  the  Bible,  any  of  them  should  have  appeared  in 
archaeological  research.  If  none  of  them  did  ever 
appear,  that  of  itself  would  not  make  the  narratives 
incredible  or  even  improbable.  It  is  quite  enough  to 
make  the  stories  beUevable  and  to  distinguish  them 
unerringly  from  any  reasonable  charge  of  being  myths 
or  legends,  that  the  historical  setting  into  which  they 
exactly  fit  has  been  provided  by  the  results  of  archae- 
ological research.  These  results  do  not  of  themselves 
prove  the  events  or  the  persons,  but  they  do  remove 
them  from  the  category  of  suspects.  To  demand  more 
than  this  as  a  condition  of  credibility  is  as  unreasonable 
as  it  would  be  to  demand  proof  that  the  battle  of 
Santiago  is  not  a  myth,  because  it  has  not  yet  been 
possible  to  settle  conclusively  who  was  the  hero  of 


108         THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

that  battle,  or  to  determine  with  certainty  whether 
or  not  a  certain  distinguished  admiral  was  in  the  battle 
at  all. 

Historical  inquiry  and  discussion  concerning  the  early 
narratives  of  the  Bible  is  quite  legitimate,  but  in  the 
Hght  which  archaeological  research  has  shed  upon  that 
historical  period  providing  suitable  historical  setting 
for  the  Biblical  narratives,  mythical  or  legendary  theo- 
ries would  not  seem  any  longer  to  have  a  standing 
in  the  discussion.  Yet  Gunkel  thinks^  that  ''the  narra- 
tive {i.e.,  of  the  four  kings  and  Abram)  contains  also 
in  the  most  striking  contrast  things  well  worthy  of 
faith  and  things  quite  impossible." 

Very  different  is  the  view  of  Ladd  concerning  the 
historicity  of  Old  Testament  narratives.  ''Jesus  Christ 
is  an  historical  verity:  the  facts  of  His  presence.  His 
life.  His  death,  are  matters  of  primary  concernment 
and  peerless  value  and  His  relations  with  the  Old 
Testament  religion,  its  history,  its  predictions,  its 
ethico-religious  truths,  are  historical  facts.  And  this 
Old  Testament  religion,  with  which  He  places  Himself 
in  such  relations,  is  preeminently  an  historical  affair. 
However  misty  are  its  historical  origins,  however  doubt- 
ful are  the  precise  arrangement  which  we  must  make 
of  many  of  its  principal  facts,  the  religion,  in  all  that 
circuit  of  truth  within  which  these  relations  of  Jesus 
are  comprised,  is  an  historical  fact ....  What  could 
be  the  conceivable  nature  of  a  revealed  religion  without 
a  record  of  facts?"^  Indeed,  if  there  be  not  this  "record 
of  facts"  in  Old  Testament  history,  there  is  no  religion 
there  that  is  "revealed"  in  any  objective  sense. 

It  seems  to  be  in  order  now,  to  complete  this  part 
of  the  discussion,  that  we  should  consider: 


CRITICAL  THEORIES  CORROBORATED  109 

II.    CRITICAL    THEORIES    ATTACKING    THE    INTEGRITY    OR 

HISTORICITY    OF    SCRIPTURE    WHICH    HAVE 

BEEN    CORROBORATED 

There  are  no  well-authenticated  instances  of  the 
corroboration  of  such  theories.  Instances  thought  by 
some  to  be  of  this  character  are  thought  by  others  to 
admit  of  entirely  reasonable  interpretation  consistent 
with  the  integrity  and  historicity  of  Scripture.  It  has 
sometimes  been  announced  at  the  discovery  of  some 
interesting  piece  of  archaeological  evidence,  thought  to 
bear  upon  Biblical  questions,  that  some  critical  theory 
discrediting  the  Biblical  account  is  finally  corroborated 
and  put  beyond  dispute,  but  eventually  it  has  always 
turned  out  either  that  the  evidence  could  not  be  pro- 
duced or  that  it  did  not  bear  at  the  point  claimed. 
It  has  often  been  said  also,  as  already  noted, ^  that 
some  critical  theories,  even  those  discrediting  the  his- 
toricity of  some  portion  of  Scripture,  have  been  fully 
sustained  by  archaeology.  It  would  extend  this  book 
beyond  reasonable  limits  to  take  up  each  such  case 
and  show,  by  examination  of  the  evidence,  that  it  is 
not  sustained  by  it.  Nor  is  it  necessary  so  to  do.  It 
may  be  fairly  assumed,  as  it  is  freely  admitted,  that 
reasonable  and  intellectually  honest  men  are  on  both 
sides  of  the  Biblical  controversies.  All  may  not  be 
such  on  either  side,  but  nearly  all  are  of  this  character. 
No  such  point  in  the  discussion  as  those  now  being 
considered  can  be  said  to  be  fully  sustained  until  the 
evidence  is  of  such  character  as  to  convince  candid 
and  reasonable  men  generally  on  both  sides  of  the 
controversy  who  have  examined  the  evidence.  The 
instances  of  theories  against  the  historicity  of  the  Bible 


110  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

which  have  been  discredited,  as  noted  in  the  preceding 
pages,  will  bear  this  test.  When  any  such  theories 
have  been  corroborated  finally  by  archaeological  evi- 
dence that  fact  also  will  be  conceded  generally  by 
reasonable  scholars  who  have  examined  the  evidence, 
even  by  those  who  have  opposed  such  theories.  There 
are  no  instances  of  this  kind. 


CHAPTER  X 

Critical  Theories  of  Scripture  Just  Now 
Challenged 

In  one  respect  every  presentation  of  the  current 
Biblical  discussions  must  be  unsatisfactory  There  is 
never  a  time  and  nowhere  a  place  that  it  is  possible 
to  present  a  complete  review  of  these  discussions,  for 
there  is  no  intennission  and  no  common  halting  place. 
Critical  opinion,  like  all  things  in  the  philosophy  of 
Heraclitus,  is  always  in  a  state  of  flux;  and  critics,  like 
the  Athenians,  are  always  ready — to  ''hear  or  to  tell 
some  new  thing."  So  there  are  always  important  points 
in  critical  controversies  which  are  challenged  and  upon 
which  judgment  must  be  suspended.  We  will  here 
in  the  third  place  take  up  some  of  these  critical 
theories  just  now  challenged. 

Some  theories  long  held  and  generally  considered 
well  estabhshed,  are  now  challenged  in  the  name  of 
archaeology.  Whether  or  not  the  challenges  will  be 
ultimately  sustained  cannot,  as  yet,  be  determined, 
though,  in  some  cases,  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the 
issue. 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  consider  here  all  of 
the  unsettled  questions  of  archaeology  and  criticism. 
But  a  few  important  critical  theories  now  challenged 
by  archaeology,  the  challenges  of  which,  if  they  be 
finally  sustained,  will  have  a  far-reaching  effect  upon 
criticism,  may  well  be  presented  just  as  they  are  now 
in  a  still  problematic  state. 

Ill 


112        THE   DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE  MONUMENTS 
I.    BABYLONIAN    ORIGINS    IN    CRITICISM 

The  Babylonian  origin  and  westward  course  of  early 
Semitic  tradition  and  culture,  especially  religious  tra- 
dition and  culture,  has  been  long  and  almost,  if  not 
quite,  universally  held.  Indeed,  nearly  every  critical 
work,  since  the  recognition  of  the  literary  character 
of  the  early  Babylonian  civilization,  has  been  written 
from  the  standpoint  of  this  theory.  And  in  spite  of 
wide  divergence  in  theological  views,  in  critical  pre- 
suppositions, and  in  results  and  conclusions,  practically 
every  critic  of  all  schools  and  all  the  archaeologists  as 
well,  have  argued,  or  more  often  postulated,  the  Baby- 
lonian origin  and  westward  course  of  Semitic  culture 
and  tradition.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  cite  references 
when  they  are  on  every  hand,  but  a  few  definite  state- 
ments of  the  case  by  various  authors  may  profitably 
be  considered. 

Professor  Barton  concludes  ''that  we  must  hold  to 
an  Arabic  origin  of  the  Semites.  .  .  .  The  northern 
Semites — the  Babylonians,  the  Arameans,  and  Canaan- 
ites — first  separated  from  their  brethren  in  the  South 
and  settled  in  Babylonia  and  the  neighboring  regions, 
where  they  lived  together  for  a  long  period.  The 
Arameans  were  the  first  to  separate  from  the  main 
body  of  emigrants;  at  a  considerably  later  period  the 
Canaanites,  and,  last  of  all,  the  Assyrians."^  Dr.  Orr 
says:  "The  transformation  of  opinion  [from  a  still 
earlier  view]  has  been  revolutionary.  The  entire  per- 
spective is  altered,  and  it  is  felt  that  Israel  is  now  rather 
to  be  regarded  as  a  people  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the 
earth  had  come  in  respect  of  civilization.  The  world 
was  already  old  in  the  times  of  Jacob  and  Moses,  and 


BABYLONIAN   ORIGINS    IN   CRITICISM  113 

the  tendency  is  now  to  see  in  the  religious  ideas  and 
institutions  of  Israel  an  inheritance  from  Babylonia, 
and  to  bring  in  Babylonian  influence  at  the  beginning 
of  Israel's  history,  rather  than  at  its  close.  The  gain 
is  appreciable  in  the  breaking  up  of  older  critical  theo- 
ries, but  the  attempt  to  ignore  the  distinctive  features 
of  the  Biblical  religion,  and  to  resolve  the  latter  into 
a  simple  compound  of  the  ideas  of  other  religions,  is 
bound  to  fail,  and  is  being  met  with  an  effective  protest 
from  critical  scholars  themselves."^ 

This  theory  of  the  Babylonian  origin  and  westward 
course  of  Semitic  culture  has  been  mildly  criticized 
and  even  questioned  for  some  time  and  is  now  boldly 
challenged,  not  with  any  idea  of  a  return  to  the  former 
view  but  of  going  still  farther  back  for  a  viewpoint, 
putting  Palestine,  if  not  at  the  dawn  of  Semitic  culture, 
at  least  at  an  earlier  point  in  it  than  the  rise  of  Baby- 
lonian culture.  Professor  Clay^  formulates  the  new 
view  on  the  subject  which  has  been  crystallizing  for 
some  time  and  gives  it  to  the  world  with  the  addition 
of  some  most  valuable  material  of  his  own.  He  says: 
"The  current  theory  of  Semitic  scholars  concerning 
the  origin  of  the  Semitic  Babylonians  is  that  they  came 
from  Arabia,  and  that  after  their  culture  had  developed 
in  Babylonia  it  was  carried  westward  into  Amurru 
{i.e.,  Palestine  and  Syria)  generally  known  as  the  land 
of  the  Amorites. 

"Without  attempting  to  determine  the  ultimate  ori- 
gin of  the  Semites,  the  writer  holds  that  every  indi- 
cation, resulting  from  his  investigations,  proves  that  the 
movement  of  the  Semites  was  eastward  from  Amurru 
and  Aram  (i.e.,  from  the  lands  of  the  West)  into  Baby- 
lonia.    In   other  words,   the   culture   of  the   Semitic 


114  THE   DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Babylonians  points,  if  not  to  its  origin,  at  least  to  a 
long  development  in  Amurru  before  it  was  carried  into 
Babylonia."^ 

Again,  in  discussing  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  he  says : 
''In  considering  these  different  facts  in  connection  with 
the  name  and  worship  of  Yahweh,  it  seems  that  the 
Kenite,  the  Babylonian,  the  Canaanite,  and  all  other 
theories  must  give  way  to  that  which  is  gathered  from 
the  Old  Testament,  namely,  that  the  worship  of  Yahweh 
came  from  the  country  of  the  ancestors  of  Abram,  the 
Aramaean.  Recent  discoveries  thus  furnish  a  greater 
antiquity  for  things  Biblical  than  is  usually  accorded 
to  them,  and  point  to  the  ancestral  home  of  Abram, 
i.e.,  Aram,  which  was  identified  closely  with  Amurra, 
instead  of  Babylonia,  as  the  source  of  Israel's  culture. 

"It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  differ  radically  from 
even  those  who,  like  Professor  Rodgers,  say  that  'the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  in  their  present  form, 
as  also  in  the  original  documents  into  which  modern 
critical  research  has  traced  their  origin,  bear  eloquent 
witness  to  Babylonia  as  the  old  home  of  the  Hebrew 
people,  and  of  their  collection  of  sacred  stories.'  But, 
let  me  add,  in  appreciation  of  what  the  same  writer 
says,  even  when  he  includes  those  elements  which  he 
thinks  were  borrowed  from  the  Babylonians:  'When 
all  these  are  added  up  and  placed  together,  they  are 
small  in  number  and  insignificant  in  size  when  compared 
with  all  the  length  and  breadth  and  height  of  Israel's 
literature.'  But  the  writer  ventures  to  go  even  farther 
and  to  claim  that  the  influence  of  Babylonian  culture 
upon  the  peoples  of  Canaan  was  almost  nil. 

"The  story  of  Babel  in  Genesis  at  this  point  becomes 
especially  interesting;  for  in  it  we  may  see  a  reflection 


GRADUAL   INVASION    OF   PALESTINE  115 

as  handed  down  by  the  Bibhcal  writer  of  the  move- 
ment of  the  Semites  from  the  West,  who  made  Babel 
a  prominent  center.  'As  they  journeyed  East,  they 
found  a  plain  in  the  land  of  Shinar.'  Here  these 
mountaineers  used  'brick  instead  of  stone'  to  which 
they  had  been  accustomed  in  their  native  land;  and 
'bitmnen'  instead  of  'mortar.'  This  became  naturally 
a  city  sacred  to  their  chief  deity,  Amar,  whose  name 
the  Sumerian  scribes  wrote  in  the  cuneiform  script, 
Amar-uduk."^ 

Thus  Amurru,  Syria  and  Palestine,  is  declared  to 
be  the  home  of  the  northern  Semite;  if  not  the  original 
home,  at  least  an  earher  home  than  Babylonia.  Thus 
the  course  of  Semitic  culture  was  from  west  to  east 
rather  than  from  east  to  west.  This  proposes  a  com- 
plete "right-about-face"  in  the  whole  critical  discussion 
of  the  early  portions  of  the  Bible.  Just  what  the 
ultimate  effect  upon  various  critical  views  will  be,  if 
this  theory  is  sustained,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The 
immediate  practical  effect  of  its  adoption  would  seem 
to  be  to  put  on  the  shelf  everjdihing  written  from  the 
old  viewpoint  and  to  cause  the  rewriting  of  criticism 
from  this  new  viewpoint.  Farther  than  this,  it  is 
impossible  to  see.  Whether  the  influence  of  this  theory 
would  be  in  the  direction  of  more  conservative  views 
or  in  the  opposite  direction  can  only  be  known  by  its 
adoption  and  apphcation,  if  it  finds  acceptance. 

II.    THE  GRADUAL  INVASION  OF  PALESTINE 

It  will  not  be  disrespectful  to  the  advocates  of  the 
evolutionary  theory  of  Israel's  history,  and  especially 
rehgious  culture,  out  of  a  Palestinian  origin  and  environ- 


116  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

ment  to  say  that  their  theory  demands  the  gradual 
invasion  of  Palestine.  Though  distinguished  advocates 
of  that  theory  are  ready  enough  to  admit  that  there 
are  ebbs  and  flows  and  eddies  in  the  process  of  evo- 
lution, yet  since  no  one  can  tell  where  to  put  them  in 
this  case  and,  indeed,  since  any  such  sudden  and  radical 
interruption  as  a  conquest  would  fatally  break  with 
the  source  and  environment  out  of  which  the  culture 
is  said  to  have  come,  it  becomes  necessary  to  assume 
a  gradual  invasion  instead  of  the  conquest  recorded 
in  the  Bible.  Archaeological  investigation  of  the  facts 
in  the  case,  but  recentlybegun,  is  as  yet  quite  incom- 
plete and  the  outcome  can  only  yet  be  said  to  be  fairly 
evident.  The  advocates  of  the  theory  of  a  gradual 
invasion  have  been  able  in  many  cases  to  make  out 
what  is  to  themselves,  at  least,  a  fairly  satisfactory 
account  of  the  discoveries  consistent  with  their  theories. 
Yet  a  full  review  of  the  facts  seems  very  sharply  to 
challenge  that  theory.  A  kind  of  archaeological  book  of 
Joshua  is  being  constructed  to  be  laid  along  side  of  the 
Joshua  of  Scripture.  The  parallel  is  exceedingly  inter- 
esting. It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  sharply  the 
record  in  the  two  books  to  see  with  reasonable  clearness 
the  .outcome.  That  some  have  not  seen  it  is  due 
largely  to  the  fact  that  they  have  first  torn  the  Biblical 
Joshua  into  fragments,  each  piece  of  which,  being  incom- 
plete in  itself,  it  is  no  surprise  to  find  it  not  in  entire 
harmony  with  the  facts  of  archaeology,  as  it  certainly 
would  not  be  consistent  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  if 
the  book  should  prove  to  be  as  it  purports  to  be,  one 
consistent  account.  That  the  results  of  the  excava- 
tions do  not  sustain  the  statements  of  the  "  P  document" 
as  is  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  the  critical  analysis 


GEADUAL  INVASION  OF  PALESTINE  117 

of  Joshua,  is  apparent  enough;  but  if  they  are  found  to 
be  entirely  consistent  with  the  unmutilated  Bible  ac- 
count found  in  Joshua,  it  will  seem  to  most  unprejudiced 
minds  that  the  interrogation  point  should  be  placed 
after  the  ''P  document"  rather  than  after  the  BibHcal 
account  of  the  conquest. 

Now  as  to  the  facts  in  the  case :  exactly  what  change 
in  culture  is  represented  in  the  book  of  Joshua  as  the 
author  of  that  book  intended  us  to  view  it,  and  how 
much  in  this  archaeological  book  of  Joshua  which  is 
in  the  making?  How  much  of  a  break  in  culture  is 
required  by  the  Biblical  account  and  how  much  is 
shown  by  the  excavations?  An  answer  to  this  question 
by  the  author  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  may  be  quoted 
here.  Since  the  Israehtes  occupied  the  cities  and 
towns  and  vineyards  and  olive  orchards  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  and  their  ''houses,  full  of  all  good  things,"  had 
the  same  materials  and  in  the  main  the  same  purposes 
for  pottery,  and  would  adopt  methods  of  cooking  suited 
to  the  country,  spoke  the  ''language  of  Canaan,"  and 
were  of  the  same  race  as  many  of  its  people,  inter- 
married, though  against  their  law,  with  the  people  of 
the  land,  and  were  continually  chided  for  lapses  into 
the  idolatry  and  superstitious  practices  of  the  Canaan- 
ites,  and,  in  short,  were  greatly  different  from  them 
only  in  rehgion,  it  is  evident  that  the  only  marked, 
immediate  change  to  be  expected  at  the  conquest  is 
a  change  in  religion,  and  that  any  other  break  in  culture 
occasioned  by  the  devastation  of  war,  will  be  only  a 
break  in  continuance  of  the  same  kind  of  culture, 
evidence  of  demolition,  spoliation,  and  reconstruction. 
Exactly  such  change  in  religion  and  interruption  in 
culture,  at  the  conquest  period,  excavations  show.* 


118  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

History  is  found  in  layers  in  the  ruins  at  Gezer, 
where  has  been  made  the  most  extensive  examination 
of  the  archaeological  history  of  Palestine,  and  there  is 
quite  a  distinct  layer  for  the  Israelite  occupation,  dis- 
tinct enough  to  be  clearly  observed  and  charted  by 
the  excavator.  This  does  not  look  like  a  gradual  in- 
vasion. 

The  great  engineering  device  to  supply  the  city  of 
Gezer  with  water  during  a  siege  was  ruined  at  this 
same  time  and  never  brought  into  use  again.  But 
when  a  civilization  is  so  disturbed  that  it  forgets  its 
water  supply,  it  would  seem  to  have  received  rather 
a  severe  jolt,  something  at  least  that  could  hardly  be 
called  a  development. 

Then  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  High  Place  were 
encroached  upon  at  the  same  period  of  Israel's  entrance 
into  the  land,  according  to  the  account  in  Joshua, 
which  seems  to  harmonize  with  the  Biblical  account 
of  the  crowding  into  the  city  by  the  Israelites  without 
the  driving  out  of  the  Canaanites;  and  this  encroach- 
ment upon  the  sacred  place,  as  well  as  the  rapid  decline 
of  some  of  the  horrible  heathen  rites  of  human  sacrifice 
together  with  the  introduction  of  milder  and  more 
spiritual  Jewish  ideas,^  certainly  do  seem  to  point 
toward  a  rather  radical  change  in  religious  ideas. 

As  far  as  the  evidence  goes  to  the  present  time  it 
does  seem  to  indicate  a  decided  change  at  the  tune  of 
the  entrance  of  Israel  into  the  land  of  exactly  the 
character  called  for  by  the  Biblical  narrative  as  it 
stands.  So,  using  the  Biblical  narrative  here  only  for 
comparison,  setting  aside  for  the  moment  any  authority 
of  that  narrative  on  the  question  at  issue,  it  appears 
from  archaeological  evidence  alone  that  the  theory  of 


POST-CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF  HERMETIC  WRITINGS      119 

a  gradual  invasion  is  being  sharply  challenged,  with 
much  indication  of  the  challenge  being  sustained. 

That  the  book  as  it  stands  should  be  thus  vindicated 
by  the  archaeological  evidence  goes  far  toward  vindi- 
cating the  unity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  book.  It 
would  seem  a  most  remarkable  coincidence,  to  say 
the  least,  if  the  critical  analysis  of  Joshua  be  correct, 
that  a  document  so  independent  of  the  archaeological 
history  as  the  "P  document"  is  claimed  to  be  should 
have  been  combined  with  other  material  in  such  fashion 
that  the  whole  book  thus  formed  would  be  exactly 
in  harmony  with  the  archaeological  remains  to  be  pre- 
served for  millenniums  and  dug  up  in  these  latter  days! 
That  would  be  an  instance  of  ''prevision"  in  the  process 
of  evolution  about  equal  to  the  largest  claims  ever 
made  for  predictive  prophecy.  Even  the  mention  of 
Cyrus  by  Isaiah  would  hardly  go  beyond  this. 

III.    THE   POST-CHRISTIAN   VIEW   OF  THE   HERMETIC 
WRITINGS 

Those  Egyptian  religious  documents  the  Hermetic 
writings,  in  which  many  have  found  a  product  of  the 
mysticism  growing  out  of  a  mingling  of  Christian 
thought  with  later  Greek  philosophy,  have  been  thought 
certainly  to  incorporate  some  Christian  elements  or 
at  least  to  reflect  strong  Christian  influences  round 
about.  So  they  have  been  thought  to  be  of  post- 
Christian  date.  The  more  specific  reason  for  this  opin- 
ion is  a  certain  ''unholy  resemblance"  to  New  Testa- 
ment language  found  scattered  throughout  almost  the 
whole  body  of  the  Hermetic  Writings  from  the  earliest 
to  the  latest. 


120       THE   DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE   MONUMENTS 

A  few  extracts  will  make  this  clear: — "God  alone  is 
good;"i  ''Who  is  the  author  of  Re-birth?  The  Son 
of  God,  the  one  Man,  by  God's  Will."^  ''The  natural 
body  which  our  sense  perceives  is  far  removed  from 
this  essential  birth.  The  first  must  be  dissolved,  the 
last  can  never  be.  The  first  must  die,  the  last  death 
cannot  touch.  Dost  thou  not  know  thou  hast  been 
born  a  God,  son  of  the  One?"  ''The  Lord  and  Maker 
of  all  ...  .  from  himself  made  the  Second  God, 
the  visible  ....  whom  he  loved  as  his  Son."' 
"Baptize  thyself  with  this  Font's  baptism  .... 
thou  that  hast  faith  thou  canst  ascend  to  Him  who 
hath  sent  down  the  Font."^ 

But  recent  critical  examination  of  these  writings  by 
Professor  Petrie  has  made  probable  their  pre-Christian 
origin.  The  distinguished  archaeologist  reasons  from 
internal  evidence  in  correlation  with  well  known  history. 
His  method  may  be  illustrated  by  one  extract  from  the 
discussion  of  the  Kore  Kosmou  or  Virgin  of  the  World. 

"The  Egyptian  forms  of  the  names  of  the  gods  imply 
earlier  translation  than  that  of  the  other  works.  What 
seems  to  stamp  this  period  is  an  allusion  in  section 
forty-eight,  where  the  central  land  of  Egypt  is  described 
as  'free  from  trouble,  ever  it  brings  forth,  adorns  and 
educates,  and  only  with  such  weapons  wars  (on  men) 
and  wins  the  victory,  and  with  consummate  skill,  like 
a  good  satrap  bestows  the  fruit  of  its  victory  upon  the 
vanquished.'  It  would  seem  impossible  for  the  allusion 
to  the  government  of  a  satrap  to  be  preferred  by  an 
Egyptian,  except  under  ibhe  Persian  dominion."* 

The  Writings,  thus,  according  to  such  evidence,  are 
dated  from  a  period  about  510  B.C.  down  till  near  the 


POST-CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF  HERMETIC  WRITINGS     121 

middle  of  the  first  Christian  century.  On  such  grounds 
it  is  concluded  that  *'we  are  now  in  a  position  to  gauge 
what  ideas  were  already  a  part  of  religious  thought 
and  phraseology  of  serious  persons  in  the  first  century; 
and  thus  to  understand  what  were  the  other  terms  and 
ideas  in  Christianity  which  were  new  to  mankind." 
"The  separation  of  the  new  ideas  in  the  teaching  of 
Christ  and  of  the  apostles  from  amid  the  general  terms 
of  religion  at  the  time,  is  the  only  road  to  understand 
what  Christianity  meant  to  those  who  actually  heard 
the  teaching  of  the  Way."^  In  a  letter  to  the  author, 
Professor  Petrie  sums  up  the  whole  case  as  it  appears 
to  him  in  these  words: — ''My  position  simply  is  that 
the  current  religious  phrases  and  ideas  of  the  B.C.  age 
must  be  grasped  in  order  to  understand  the  usages  of 
religious  language  in  which  the  New  Testament  is 
written.  And  we  can  never  know  the  real  motive  of 
New  Testament  writings  until  we  know  how  much  is 
new  thought  and  how  much  is  current  theology  in 
terms  of  which  the  Euangelion  is  expressed." 

If  this  opinion  shall  be  ultimately  sustained,  the 
material  furnished  by  these  writings  must  have  a  far- 
reaching  effect  upon  New  Testament  criticism.  It  can 
hardly  be  denied  that  the  theological  terms  of  Alex- 
andrian Greek  would  be  as  helpful  in  determining  the 
exact  limits  of  New  Testament  theological  terms  as 
the  pages  of  classic  Greek  have  been  in  determining 
the  ordinary  lexical  definitions.  Language  is  every- 
where the  mold  into  which  thought  is  poured.  Here 
then  we  would  be  able  to  examine  with  care  that  mold 
into  which  New  Testament  theological  thought  was 
cast.     Surely  the  preparation  of  a  language  for  the 


122  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

New  Testament  revelation  was  no  less  a  providential 
care  than  the  preparation  of  a  people,  a  land,  and  an 
age. 

Last  of  all  of  these  theories  just  now  challenged  by 
archaeology  may  be  mentioned, 

IV.    THE  DEROGATORY  VIEW  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK 

This  which  deals  with  grammatical  forms  and  idioms, 
differs  essentially  from  the  last,  which  dealt  with 
diction.  The  view  of  New  Testament  Greek  which 
for  a  long  time  held  the  Alexandrian  dialect  to  be 
corrupt,  ungrammatical,  and  sometimes  inaccurate  is 
now  boldly  and  probably  finally  challenged  by  the 
discoveries  made  in  rubbish  heaps  in  Greek  cities  in 
Egypt.  The  unearthing  of  business  letters  and  docu- 
ments, private  epistles,  even  love  letters,  has  revealed 
a  wealth  in  the  New  Testament  dialect  as  refreshing 
as  it  is  startling. 

"Diessmann  ....  found  there  evidence  that  the 
isolation  of  the  sacred  Greek  could  be  maintained  no 
more.  The  idioms  which  had  been  supposed  to  come 
from  over-hteral  translations  of  Hebrew  or  Greek 
originals,  turned  up  with  astonishing  frequency  in  the 
rough,  ill-spelt  letters  and  petitions  and  accounts  of 
Greek-speaking  farmers  in  upper  Egypt,  who  could 
not  by  any  possibility  have  been  brought  under  the 
influence  of  Hebrew  thought.  One  after  another  the 
Hebraisms  vanished,  to  be  replaced,  not  by  the  classical 
parallels  of  the  purist,  but  by  a  phraseology  now  for 
the  first  time  traced  in  every  day  uneducated  Greek 
speech.  It  became  plain,  and  it  is  becoming  plainer 
with  every  fresh  volume  of  papyri,  that  the  'language 


ALEXANDRIAN  DIALECT  OF  GEEEK  123 

of  the  Holy  Ghost'  was,  as  we  might  have  expected, 
simply  the  language  of  the  common  people,  the  lan- 
guage in  which  he  could  make  himself  understood 
everywhere  by  the  masses  to  whom  his  revelation 
came."^ 

Apparently  the  Alexandrian  Greek  was,  as  a  dialect, 
corrupt  only  in  the  technical  sense  that  it  differed  from 
classic  models,  but  at  the  same  time  it  had  a  wide- 
spread, varied,  and  cultured  usage. 


CHAPTER  XI 

Reconstructive  Theories  not  Confirmed 

In  considering  critical  theories  as  affected  by  archse- 
ological  facts,  we  come  now  to  a  fourth  class: — 

RECONSTRUCTIVE    THEORIES    NOT    CONFIRMED. 

These  are  of  those  theories  which  propose  to  take 
Scripture  at  other  than  its  face  value  and  which,  as 
a  matter  of  course,  challenge  and  propose  seriously  to 
affect  the  historicity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  sacred 
narratives.  There  are  a  considerable  number  of  this 
class  of  theories  which  are  still  prominently  or  even 
generally  held  among  those  with  whom  such  methods 
of  criticism  are  in  favor.  These  now  call  for  a  most 
careful  examination.  But  it  must  be  kept  in  mind 
that  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  book  to  present  and 
discuss  all  critical  theories  in  extenso,  but  simply  to 
give  such  presentation  of  theories  and  such  discussion 
of  the  bearing  of  archseological  evidence  upon  them  as 
will  make  clear  one  point,  namely,  whether  or  not  the 
theories  under  consideration  are  being  sustained  by 
the  results  of  archseological  research. 

Not  a  single  one  of  these  reconstructive  theories  has 
been  thus  sustained.  This  statement  of  the  fact  must 
at  once  meet  the  assertion  frequently  and  vigorously 
made  that  it  is  otherwise.  Not  to  weary  the  reader 
with  many  references  at  this  point,  the  words  of  Dr. 
Driver  in  a  late  and  most  important  utterance  of 
criticism  may  be  again  noted  and  will  suffice.    He 

124 


CRITICAL  THEORIES  IN  A  NEGATIVE  PLIGHT       125 

says:  "On  all  other  [controverted]  points  the  facts 
of  archaeology,  so  far  as  they  are  at  present  known, 
harmonize  entirely  with  the  position  generally  advo- 
cated by  critics."^ 

How  can  such  assertion  be  made,  if  the  theories  in 
question  are  not  being  sustained  by  the  facts  of  archae- 
ology? It  is  not  credible,  it  is  hardly  even  thinkable, 
that  the  candor  and  sincerity  of  such  a  man  is  to  be 
challenged.  Some  explanation  consistent  with  good 
faith  and  earnestness  must  be  found.  This  statement 
and  similar  statements  by  others  sometimes  mean  that 
the  particular  instances  of  reconstructive  theories  which 
happen  to  be  immediately  in  mind  and  under  discussion 
at  the  time  are  not  advocated  by  those  making  the 
statement  and  not  by  them  regarded  as  generally  advo- 
cated by  critics.  This,  however,  only  explains  a  very 
few  cases.  In  most  instances  this  broad  assertion  of 
harmony  between  reconstructive  theories  of  criticism 
and  the  facts  of  archaeology  means  that  the  theories 
in  question  have  not  been  positively  and  definitely 
contradicted  by  archaeological  evidence.  Critical  theo- 
ries in  such  negative  plight  are  not  yet  in  a  position 
to  command  our  adherence.  Are  we  to  be  asked  to 
shape  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life  to  all  the  theories  of 
political  economists  which  cannot  as  yet  be  definitely 
contradicted  by  facts?  Are  we  to  arrange  our  dietary 
according  to  unconfirmed  theories  of  pathology  and 
hygiene  because  we  cannot  definitely  show  by  facts 
that  the  theories  are  wrong?  Would  men  have  been 
warranted  in  winding  up  their  business  affairs  on  the 
strength  of  the  theory  of  some  astronomers  that  Halley's 
comet  was  going  to  knock  this  old  world  off  the  track 
because  they  could  not  definitely  contradict  the  theory 


126  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

by  facts?  And  are  we,  then,  in  the  vastly  more  impor- 
tant realm  of  the  soul's  eternal  interest,  to  accept 
unconfirmed  theories  concerning  the  Word  of  God 
simply  because  we  cannot  present  facts  which  definitely 
contradict  them.  It  is  not  enough  that  theories  be 
not  definitely  contradicted  by  archaeological  facts.  We 
have  already  seen^  that  they  must  be  definitely  cor- 
roborated by  such  facts  before  being  accepted  and 
allowed  to  affect  one's  life  and  one's  hopes  for  eternity. 
In  still  other  instances  when  it  is  asserted  that  the 
"facts  of  archaeology  so  far  as  they  are  at  present 
known  harmonize  entirely  with  the  position  generally 
advocated  by  the  critics,"  those  making  the  assertion  are 
simply  mistaken.  That  this  is  so  must  be  shown.  It  is 
not  necessary,  however,  to  inquire  in  every  case  how  they 
come  to  be  mistaken.  Presentation  in  full  of  a  specific 
instance  will  so  illustrate  the  sources  of  mistakes  as 
to  be  far  more  satisfying.  Fortunately  such  an  instance 
is  at  hand  in  the  latest  and  most  important  utterance 
of  criticism  on  the  subject  of  support  from  archaeology, 
an  instance  which,  in  part,  illustrates  this  very  ordinary 
well-intentioned  blundering,  and,  in  part,  the  rather 
subtle  fallacy  mentioned  in  the  last  paragraph  of  claim- 
ing harmony  with  particular  theories  where  there  is 
not  positive  contradiction. 

I.   THE   UNHISTORICAL   CHARACTER   OF   GENESIS   XIV 

Dr.  Driver  says:  ''It  is  stated  by  Professor  Sayce 
expressly,  and  by  Dr.  Orr,  and  Professor  A.  T.  Clay, 
by  implication,  that  Noldeke's  arguments  against  the 
historical  character  of  the  narrative  of  Genesis  xiv 
have  been  refuted  by  archaeology.     The  statement  sup- 


HISTORICAL  CHARACTER  OF  GENESIS  XIV  127 

plies  such  an  object-lesson  of  the  methods  on  which 
the  opponents  of  criticism  not  unfrequently  rely,  that 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  explain  here  the  grounds 
upon  which  it  rests.  Here  are  Professor  Sayce's  words 
{Monumental  Facts,  1904,  p.  54,  cf.,  though  without 
Noldeke's  name.  Monuments,  p.  161  f.):  'In  1869  the 
great  Semitic  scholar.  Professor  Noldeke,  published  a 
treatise  on  the  "  Unhistorical  Character  of  Genesis 
xiv."^  He  declared  that  "criticism"  had  forever  dis- 
proved its  claim  to  be  historical.  The  political  situ- 
ation presupposed  by  it  was  incredible  and  impossible; 
at  so  distant  a  date  Babylonian  armies  could  not  have 
marched  to  Canaan,  much  less  could  Canaan  have 
been  a  subject  province  of  Babylonia.  The  whole 
story,  in  fact,  was  a  fiction  based  upon  the  Assyrian 
conquest  of  Palestine  in  later  days.  The  names  of  the 
princes  commemorated  in  it  were  etymological  inven- 
tions; eminent  Semitic  scholars  had  already  explained 
those  of  Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies  from  Sanskrit, 
and  those  of  the  Canaanitish  princes  were  drived  from 
the  events  in  which  they  were  supposed  to  have  borne 
a  part.'  And  then  he  goes  on  to  declare  triumphantly 
(p.  55)  how  the  progress  of  archaeology  has  refuted  all 
these  statements."  "It  will  probably  surprise  the 
reader  to  be  told  that,  of  the  series  of  arguments  thus 
attributed  to  Professor  Noldeke,  while  the  one  about 
the  names  is  attributed  to  him  with  partial  correctness 
(though  in  so  far  as  it  is  stated  correctly,  it  has  not 
been  refuted  by  archaeology),  the  other  arguments  were 
never  used  by  him  at  all."  "The  one  grain  of  truth 
in  Professor  Sayce's  long  indictment  is  that  of  the 
names  of  the  five  Canaanite  kings,  which  are  given, 
Bera  and  Birsha  (suggesting  the  idea  of  "evil"  and 


128  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

''wickedness"),  and  perhaps  Shin'ab  and  Shem'eber 
as  well,  are  formed  artificially  but  this  (N  B)  is  not 
asserted  of  the  name  of  any  of  the  four  kings  from  the 
East."'^  ''The  fact  is,  Noldeke's  arguments  on  Genesis 
xiv  have  not  been  refuted,  or  even  touched,  by  archae- 
ology. "Professor  Sayce  has  simply  not  mentioned 
Noldeke's  real  arguments  at  all.  Nor  are  they  men- 
tioned by  Dr.  Orr  or  Professor  Clay."  "Archaeology 
has  met  the  arguments  which  Noldeke  did  not  use; 
it  has  not  met  the  arguments  which  he  did  use.  Noldeke 
never  questioned,  as  Professor  Sayce  declares  that  he 
did,  the  general  possibility  at  this  time  of  an  expedition 
being  sent  from  the  far  East  into  Palestine :  his  argument 
consisted  in  pointing  out  various  historical  improba- 
bilities attaching  to  the  details  of  a  particular  expedi- 
tion; and  archaeology  can  overthrow  this  argument 
only  by  producing  evidence  that  this  expedition,  with 
the  details  as  stated  in  Genesis  xiv,  actually  took 
place  and  this  up  to  the  present  time  (June,  1909) 
archaeology  has  not  done." 

This  seems  conclusive.  If  one  knew  nothing  more 
of  the  case  than  what  is  here  stated,  and  were  content 
to  accept  Driver's  assertion  without  examining  the 
evidence  himself,  he  must  conclude,  as  this  eminent 
critrc  evidently  expected  his  readers  to  conclude,  that 
the  claim  of  harmony  between  archaeological  evidence 
and  critical  theories  in  this  part  of  the  Word  of  God 
is  completely  made  out  and  the  claim  of  his  opponents 
utterly  refuted.  Those,  however,  who  care  to  examine 
evidence  for  themselves  and  to  draw  their  own  con- 
clusions may  compare  these  declarations  of  Driver  one 
by  one,  though  in  somewhat  different  order,  with 
Noldeke's  own  words  now  to  be  quoted,  and  then 


NOLDEKE's  view  of  genesis  XIV  129 

compare  Noldeke's  statements  with  the  facts  of  latter- 
day  archseological  research .  Some  very  surprising  things 
will  appear. 

Noldeke  says:  "The  chapter  begins  with  an  impos- 
ing enumeration  of  kings,  in  whose  time  the  narrated 
event  is  alleged  to  have  occurred  ....  Of  what  use 
is  the  dating  according  to  kings,  the  time  of  whose 
reigns  is  perfectly  unknown  to  us?  ....  so  that 
the  dating  is  wholly  superfluous  and  tells  us  nothing."^ 
Bera  and  Birsha  are  said  to  be  ''quite  decidedly  unhis- 
torical."  "The  alliterative  pairing  also  of  these  names 
speaks  more  for  their  fictitious  than  for  their  historical 
origin.  It  is  striking  that  for  the  single  historical  city 
of  Zoar,  no  name  of  the  king  is  given."  "Besides,  we 
are  bound  to  no  time,  for  the  event  recounted  could 
quite  as  well  have  taken  place  in  the  year  4000  as 
2000;  the  artificial  chronology  of  Genesis  is  for  us  no 
rule."  "Whence  the  narrator  got  the  names  of  the 
hostile  kings  we  cannot  say.  They  may  really  have 
been  handed  down  to  him,  perhaps  quite  in  another 
connection.  However  that  may  be,  the  utmost  we  can 
admit  is  that  he  has  employed  a  few  correct  names 
intermingled  with  false  or  invented  ones,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  historicity  thus  produced  can  as  little  perma- 
nently deceive  us  as  the  proper  names  and  dates  in  the 
book  of  Esther." 

"Concede  provisionally  the  correctness  of  the  names 
of  the  kings  and  test  the  narrative  further."  Here  in 
a  long  paragraph  Noldeke  follows  the  reductio  ad 
absurdum,  arguing  that,  from  an  historical  standpoint, 
the  provisional  supposition  is  incredible  and  impossible, 
and  concludes,  "Now  this  whole  expedition  is  histori- 
cally improbable  to  the  same  extent  that  it  is  adapted 


130  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

to  the  production  of  a  striking  effect;  the  usual  sign 
that  it  is  fictitious  ....  does  not  the  manifest 
improbabiUty  of  the  narrative  lie  precisely  in  the  details 
which  give  it  the  appearance  of  historicity?"^ 

Concerning  the  story  of  Abram's  pursuit  of  the  kings 
and  the  rescue  of  Lot,  he  says:  ''If  that  is  possible, 
then  is  nothing  impossible.  It  may  be  replied  that 
the  number  of  Abram's  servants  was  in  reality  much 
greater;  but  everything  depends  upon  it,  and  the  num- 
ber belongs  again  to  the  very  things  which  spread  over 
the  narrative  the  deceptive  shimmer  of  historicity. "^ 
Of  Melchizedek  and  the  Amorite  allies  of  Abram,  he 
says:  ''So  do  the  proofs  pile  up,  that  our  narrative 
has  no  historical  worth."  "Even  if  the  rest  of  the 
chapter  were  historical  we  would  still  hold  Melchizedek 
a  poetical  figure. "^ 

He  sums  up  the  argument  in  the  following:  "In 
accordance  with  what  has  been  said,  it  is  very  improb- 
able that  the  composer  in  the  chief  matters  rested  upon 
a  real  tradition  of  the  people,  but  we  must  accept  as 
a  fact  that  it  is  a  free  creation  throughout."* 

On  the  same  subject,  in  reply  to  some  of  his  critics, 
he  says:  "I  sum  up  once  more  the  general  points:  (1)  Of 
the  names  mentioned  in  Genesis  xiv,  several  are  unhis- 
torical  (the  name  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  three 
Amorites,  Melchizedek:  in  my  view  also  Abram  and 
Lot  and  probably  the  four  overwhelmed  cities).  (2) 
The  expedition  of  the  kings  can  not  have  taken  place 
as  narrated  ....  Even  through  the  very  clearness 
of.  the  narrative  are  we  made  to  know  that  we  have 
here  to  do  with  a  romantic  expedition,  the  course  of 
which  is  determined  by  aim  at  sharper  effect,  and 
which  has  for  itself  no  historical  probability.     (3)  The 


NOLDEKE's  view  of  genesis  XIV  131 

small  number  of  the  host  in  whose  complete  victory- 
over  the  army  of  the  four  kings  the  story  at  last  comes 
to  a  cHmax  is  contrary  to  sense,  while  yet  it  designates 
about  the  utmost  number  which  as  his  own  fighting 
men  a  private  citizen  could  put  in  the  field.  Whoever 
now  throughout  all  of  this  will  hold  to  an  historical 
kernel  may  do  so;  he  must  then  admit  that  at  some 
perfectly  uncertain  time  in  great  antiquity  a  king  of 
Elam  ruled  over  the  Jordan  Land  and  made  a  war-like 
expedition  thither.  But  that  would  be  the  utmost 
concession  I  could  make.  Everything  more  precise, 
as  numbers,  names,  etc.,  and  also  exactly  that  which 
produces  the  appearance  of  careful  tradition  and  trust- 
worthiness, is  partly  false,  partly  quite  unreliable  .  .  . 
,  .  more  especially  beyond  the  conquest  itself  nothing 
whatever  could  be  known.  But  to  me  it  still  seems 
much  more  probable,  in  view  of  the  consistent,  and 
for  the  aim  of  the  narrator  exceedingly  well-ordered, 
but  still,  in  reality,  impossible  course  of  the  narrative, 
out  from  which  there  cannot  be  separated  any  single 
things  as  bare  exaggerations  of  the  tradition,  that  we 
have  here  a  conscious  fiction  in  which  only  a  few  his- 
torical names  have  been  used."^ 

It  must  be  apparent  to  every  one  who  has  carefully 
followed  this  comparison  between  Noldeke's  statements 
and  Driver's  assertions  concerning  Noldeke's  views  that 
there  is  a  serious  discrepancy  between  them,  greater, 
indeed,  than  any  discrepancy  which  either  Driver  or 
Noldeke  thought  to  point  out  in  this  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture. We  cannot  for  a  moment  impugn  the  literary 
honesty  of  the  distinguished  Oxford  professor,  but  must 
it  would  seem,  conclude  that  he  did  not  know  of  all 
that  Noldeke  had  said  on  the  subject  and  to  which 


132  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Professor  Sayce  referred.  Driver's  representations  of 
Noldeke's  views  are  fairly  well  sustained  by  the  par- 
ticular passage  from  Noldeke's  Untersuchungen  to  which 
he  refers,  taken  alone,  and  seem  to  have  been  based 
upon  those  statements,  but  Noldeke's  statements  in 
the  WissenschaftUche  Theologie  are  absolutely  ignored 
in  the  representations  made  of  Noldeke's  views  by 
Driver.  He  seems  not  to  have  known  of  these  further 
statements.  In  any  case  he  is  partly  mistaken  in  his 
views  and  partly  he  has  fallen  into  the  fallacy  of  calling 
that  harmony  which  is  only  lack  of  contradiction,  the 
harmony  that  prevails  in  time  of  war  when  no  enemy 
is  in  sight. 

Noldeke  does  plainly  teach  the  very  things  which 
Driver  so  categorically  says  he  did  not  teach:  the 
incredibility  of  the  political  situation  presupposed  by 
the  narrative  in  Genesis  xiv,  the  questionable  character 
of  the  story  of  a  warlike  expedition  from  the  East  to 
Palestine  in  that  age,  the  fictitious  character  of  the 
names  of  the  principal  persons  in  the  narrative,  in 
most  cases  no  more  than  poetical  fancies  or  etymologi- 
cal inventions,  and  the  generally  unhistorical  character 
of  the  narrative  which  he  characterizes  as  a  ''free 
creation   throughout,"    and   "a   conscious   fiction." 

So  much  for  the  "harmonizing"  of  Driver  with 
Noldeke.  Let  us  now  consider  the  ''harmonizing"  of 
the  results  of  archaeological  research  "so  far  as  at 
present  known"  with  the  positions  advocated  by  Nol- 
deke. These  results  have  been  stated  in  different  places, 
in' the  former  parts  of  this  volume,  and  need  only  be 
enmnerated  together  here.  A  confederacy  of  kings  in 
the  East,  of  that  period,  with  Elam  in  the  ascendency, 
has  appeared.^     Chedorlaomer  has  not  yet  certainly 


NOLDEKE's  view  of  genesis  XIV  133 

been  identified,  but  the  first  part  of  his  name  is  used 
by  Elamite  kings  of  that  time,  and  the  second  part  of 
his  name,  Lagamar,  is  the  name  of  a  prominent  Elamite 
god.  There  is  yet  dispute  about  the  exact  identification 
of  these  individual  kings,  but  no  one  would  now  venture 
to  say  that  their  names  were  ''etymological  inventions," 
much  less,  that  the  narrative  is  a  ''free  creation  through- 
out." The  improbability  of  an  Elamite  king  making 
a  warlike  expedition  to  Palestine  in  that  age,  which 
Noldeke  so  rhetorically  insinuates,  has  disappeared 
before  the  knowledge  of  the  Elamite  suzerainty  over 
Amurru  at  that  period  of  history.  "In  a  number  of 
inscriptions,  Kudur-mabug  also  calls  himself  Adda 
Martu,  which  means  'Prince  of  the  land  of  Amurru 
(Palestine  and  Syria).'  In  other  words,  the  inscrip- 
tions prior  to  the  overthrow  of  Elam  and  Larsa  record 
the  supremacy  of  Elam  over  this  region."^ 
.  Then  Melchizedek,  though  still  not  identified  on 
the  monuments,  yet  in  the  light  of  the  strange  title 
"It  was  not  my  father,  and  it  was  not  my  mother," 
etc.,  used  by  the  kings  at  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  the 
Tell  Amarna  correspondence,  cannot  with  safety  be 
called   a   "poetical   figure. "^ 

Not  every  position  of  Noldeke  has  been  positively 
contradicted  by  the  results  of  Archaeological  research, 
and  that  is  all  the  basis  there  is  for  the  claim  that  the 
"results  of  archaeology,  so  far  as  at  present  known," 
harmonize  entirely  with  the  positions  advocated  by 
that  distinguished  critic  in  his  consideration  of  this 
fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  It  is  very  evident  that 
"the  facts  of  archaeology  so  far  as  at  present  known" 
are  very  far  from  harmonizing  entirely  with  this  parti- 
cular opinion  advanced  by  Noldeke  and  so  urgently 


134  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

reiterated  by  Driver.  And  the  fallacy  of  the  method 
used  in  advocating  such  harmony  between  the  results 
of  archaeology  and  the  positions  held  by  critics  also 
appears  very  clearly. 

Moreover,  what  is  true  of  the  relation  of  archae- 
ological evidence  to  this  particular  theory  is  equally 
true  in  the  case  of  other  reconstructive  theories  of 
criticism  at  present  held.  Let  us  proceed  to  some 
detailed  examination  of  them  in  order. 

II.    THE    PATRIARCHS    NOT    PERSONS    BUT    PERSONI- 
FICATIONS 

This  eponymic  theory  concerning  Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob,  Joseph,  and  even  all  of  the  twelve  heads  of 
tribes,  has  had  a  somewhat  varied  career.  It  has  been 
widely  held,  and  is  still  widely  held,  by  men  of  varying 
views  on  critical  questions  in  general.  It  has  been 
most  frequently  found  among  the  advanced  critics  of 
the  Graf-Wellhausen  School.  Yet  it  has  been  specially 
urged  by  Dr.  Driver  and  Dr.  Cheyne  of  Oxford.  And, 
strange  to  say.  Professor  Sayce  of  Oxford  also,  who 
has  for  a  long  time  been  a  most  determined  opponent 
of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  School,  has  recently  set  forth 
some  very  puzzling  and  rather  remarkable  views  on 
this  sub j  ect .  ^  Professor  Eduard  Konig  of  Bonn,  though 
somewhat  inclined  to  conclusions  of  a  reconstructive 
kind,  yet  strongly  insists  upon  the  historicity  of  the 
patriarchal  narrative  and  even  includes  the  story  of 
Moses  in  the  list  of  true  historical  writings.^ 

On  the  other  hand.  Dr.  Skinner,  in  his  recent  Com- 
mentary on  Genesis,  while  rather  grudgingly  admitting 
the  historic  personality  of  Abraham,  thinks  the  Joseph 


PATRIARCHS  PERSONIFICATIONS,  NOT  PERSONS      135 

story  fiction.  Conservative  critics  usually  hold  rather 
firmly  to  the  personality  of  all  the  patriarchs  and  the 
historicity  of  the  patriarchal  narratives.  Some  critics 
think  that  even  archaeological  evidence  favors  the 
eponymic  theory  of  the  patriarchs  and  especially  of 
Abraham.  Professor  Barton,  in  a  paper  before  the 
American  Society  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis, 
gives  an  admirable  presentation  of  the  best  and  the 
most  that  can  be  said  on  that  side  of  the  subject. 
In  addition  to  his  words  already  quoted,  he  says: 
''This  is  the  age  [the  XVth  and  XVIth  Egyptian 
dynasties]  to  which  all  the  Biblical  references  except 
Genesis  xiv  point  as  the  age  of  Abraham.  Genesis  xiv 
we  must  still  believe,  placed  Abraham  earlier,  for  the 
age  of  Hammurabi  must  have  considerably  preceded 
the  Kassite  migration."  This  anachronism  would,  of 
course,  of  itself  make  the  narrative  unhistorical.  He 
however  concludes  with  this  broad  and  charitable 
utterance,  ''Whatever  the  truth  may  be,  it  will  even- 
tually prevail.  No  real  scholar  desires  to  substantiate 
a  position  simply  because  it  is  old,  or  to  embrace  an 
opinion  simply  because  it  is  new  and  revolutionary. 
He  desires  the  truth  and  the  whole  truth,  and  he 
welcomes  any  science  which  can  help  him  to  it."' 

This  jumble  and  confusion  of  various  clashing  views, 
now  from  one  side  and  now  unexpectedly  from  the 
other,  well  represents,  as  it  is  here  intended  to  repre- 
sent, the  state  of  critical  opinion  on  this  important 
question.  The  one  point  to  be  made  here  in  the  con- 
sideration of  them  all  is  that  archaeology  does  not 
sustain  the  eponymic  view.  It  is  not  claimed  that 
the  personality  of  these  patriarchs  has  been  proved 
by  archaeological  results.     The  burden  of  proof  in  this 


136         THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

case  lies  on  the  other  side.  The  narratives  exist.  On 
their  face,  they  appear  to  be  historical.  They  have 
been  so  received  for  three  millenniums  and,  by  all 
the  rules  of  evidence,  those  who  would  oppose  the 
representations  of  such  ancient  and  reputable  docu- 
ments must  assume  the  burden  of  proof.  "We  shall 
see  that  the  burden  is  made  a  very  heavy  one  by  the 
facts  of  archaeology  which,  while  not  positively  proving 
the  patriarchs  to  be  persons,  does  provide  much  which 
tends  to  put  them  above  suspicion  on  that  point. 

Petrie's  discovery  concerning  the  Hyksos  at  Tell  el- 
Yehudiyeh^  so  provides  an  historical  setting  for  the 
reception  in  Egypt  of  the  patriarchs  Abram,  Joseph, 
and  Jacob  and  his  other  sons  as  to  avert  any  suspicious 
appearance  of  a  mj^hical  element  in  the  Biblical  stories 
of  those  persons. 

The  theory  that  the  Joseph  story  is  fiction  has  been 
strongly  bolstered  up  by  the  claim  that  no  such  name 
as  Zaphnath-Paaneah  existed  in  Egypt  before  the  ninth 
century  b.c.^  This  principal  prop  is  taken  away  by 
the  discovery  of  lists  of  Hyksos  kings  and  the  pointing 
out  by  Lieblein  of  three  royal  names  from  these  lists 
preceding  the  time  of  Joseph  compounded  with  the 
etymologically  puzzling  part  of  Joseph's  Egyptian 
name.  Of  the  many  attempts  to  identify  Joseph's 
name  in  the  Egyptian  language,  none  other  has  provided 
more  appropriate  signification  for  Joseph's  name  and 
none  has  been  phonetically  so  satisfactory. 

The  latest  and  superficially  the  strongest  piece  of 
evidence  urged  against  the  personality  of  Abraham  is 
the  reappearance  of  the  claim  for  "the  field  of  Abram" 
in  the  inscription  of  Shishak  II  at  Karnak.  This  is 
the  starting  point  of  Professor  Barton  in  the  review 


PATRIARCHS   PERSONIFICATIONS,    NOT   PERSONS    137 

above  referred  to/  and  is  given  special  notice  in  the 
Addenda  to  Driver's  Seventh  Edition  of  his  Genesis.^ 
Driver  says  the  name  in  the  Hst  of  Shishak  II.  ''is 
considered  now  by  Egyptologists  to  correspond  to  a 
Semitic  hakel  Ahram  'field  of  Abram.'"  Professor 
Barton  has  informed  the  author  that  he  is  now  satis- 
fied that  the  identification  is  not  correct. 

Even  if  this  supposed  evidence  be  real,  it  only 
amounts  to  this,  that  it  is  the  first  actual  appearance 
of  the  name  Abram  in  the  history  of  Palestine  outside 
of  the  Bible,  and  it  is  of  late  date.  But  the  appearance 
of  the  name  at  this  time  does  not  prove  that  it  was 
not  known  in  Palestine  before  the  date  of  the  inscrip- 
tion in  which  it  is  contained.  If  such  a  place  as  "the 
field  of  Abram"  actually  existed  at  that  time,  what 
presumption  does  its  existence  create  that  it  had  not 
been  there  for  a  thousand  years,  even  from  the  time  of 
the  first  historical  appearance  of  Abram  according  to 
the  Bible  account.  If  the  existence  of  the  name  there 
at  that  time  presents  any  presumption  at  all,  is  it  not 
rather  in  that  direction?  And  who  knows  that  the 
name  did  not  appear  elsewhere  in  Palestine,  though 
we  have  not  now,  or  yet,  any  record  of  it? 

But  the  evidence  for  this  name  "the  field  of  Abram" 
is  of  the  most  dubious  character.  It  is  highly  to  be 
regretted  that  it  is  so,  for  every  one  would  welcome 
the  name  of  Abram  in  the  inscription  of  Shishak  II 
or  in  any  other  record  either  earlier  or  later.  The 
putting  forward  of  this  reading  of  one  name  in  Shishak's 
list  in  the  popular  history  of  Egypt  by  Professor 
Breasted^  has  brought  it  to  the  front  like  a  great  dis- 
covery. It  is  nothing  new  to  Egyptologists.  Perhaps 
every  one  who  has  read  this  list  of  Shishak  has  been 


138  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

attracted  toward  this  reading,  but  upon  careful  exami- 
nation it  has  been  in  nearly  every  case  rejected.  It 
is  really  hardly  within  the  bounds  of  possibility.  Dis- 
cussion of  the  case  in  full  is  of  too  technical  a  character 
for  these  pages,  but  may  be  seen  from  both  sides  of 
the  controversy,  by  those  interested  in  makiog  the 
examination,  in  the  publications  of  Egyptologists  on 
the   subject.^ 

The  evidence  from  archaeology  has  not  as  yet  proven 
the  patriarchs  to  be  persons  and  the  patriarchal  narra- 
tives to  be  history,  but  as  far  as  it  goes  it  all  tends  in 
that  direction  by  providing  suitable  historical  setting 
for  the  narratives,  thus  lifting  them  in  nearly  every 
case,  above  the  reach  of  reasonable  suspicion.  The 
eponymic  view  is  wholly  theoretical  for  which  much 
can  cleverly  be  said,  but  which  archaeological  evidence, 
the  only  kind  of  real  evidence  in  this  case,  does  not 
sustain.^ 

III.    THE  RUDE  AND   CRUDE   CIVILIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 
IN    PATRIARCHAL   DAYS 

This  theory  of  Palestinian  civilization  is  not  only 
not  being  positively  sustained  but  is  being  positively 
and  definitely  refuted,  as  shown  in  a  former  part  of 
this  discussion.  Nevertheless,  the  subject  is  still  under 
discussion  and  the  theory,  one  of  the  reconstructive 
theories  tenaciously  held  by  some  persons  at  the  present 
time.  A  learned  and  interesting  discussion  has  recently 
appeared  presenting  very  fully  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion.^ Strange  to  say,  the  evangelical  and  moderate 
Professor  George  Adam  Smith  argues  for  the  nomadic, 
half-wild  life  of  the  patriarchs  and  incidentally  for 


CIVILIZATION  OF  PATEIARCHAL  PALESTINE  139 

the  rude  and  semi-barbarous  condition  of  the  land, 
while  the  radical  and  rationalistic  Professor  Eerdmans 
as  ardently  defends  the  more  settled  character  of  the 
patriarchal  civilization  It  is  needless  to  pursue  this 
subject  further,  for  every  portion  of  the  foundation 
upon  which  George  Adam  Smith  built  has  been  cut 
away  by  the  archaeological  researches  of  Sellin  and 
Macalister  in  the  brief  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the 
discussion.  So  that  the  theory  may  be  left  to  die  a 
natural  death  in  the  minds  of  those  who  hold  it. 


CHAPTER  XII 

Reconstructive    Theories    not  Confirmed — Con- 
tinued 

The  next  theory  to  be  considered,  following  a  natural 
order,   is  the  vague  but  startling  theory  of 

IV.  THE  desert  EGYPT 

This  daring  piece  of  speculation  is  built  not  upon 
the  great  body  of  references  to  Egypt  in  the  Bible, 
but  upon  a  very  small  number  of  obscure  passages  of 
Scripture  which  contain  reference  to  a  ''Mitzraim" 
or  ''Mitzrim"  or  ''Matzor,"  ^'Musri,"  which  are  not 
all  clearly  understood  at  present,  together  with  some 
similarly  obscure  passages  on  the  monuments.  It  was 
fully  put  forth  by  Winckler  in  his  Forschungen.^  After 
collecting  a  number  of  obscure  instances  from  Scripture 
and  the  monuments  which  seem  to  refer  to  a  place 
called  Musri  in  north  Arabia,  he  says:  "What  we 
know  of  actual  historical  remembrances  of  the  people 
of  Israel  from  pre-Canaanitish  time  points  to  a  sojourn 
in  Musri.  "Would  it  now  be  inconceivable  that  the 
kernel  of  the  tradition  of  the  Egyptian  sojourn  was 
not,  as  these  instances,  a  fact,  and  that  all  other  addi- 
tions are  indebted  for  their  origin  to  the  confounding 
of  the  two  names  'Musri' "and  'Mizraim?'" 

This  learned  Assyriologist  then  set  up  the  claim  for 
a  ''Musri,"  Egypt,  in  north  Arabia  along  the  Palestin- 
ian border  of  the  Sinai  peninsula.     Upon  so  slender  a 

140 


THE   DESERT  EGYPT  141 

foundation  of  facts  it  was  proposed  to  reconstruct  much 
of  the  Bible  history  in  which  Egypt  is  mentioned. 
To  this  Egypt  the  patriarchs  were  to  be  sent;  there 
was  to  be  whatever  of  bondage  Israel  really  suffered; 
thence  the  Exodus,  merely  a  moving  over  the  border 
into  Canaan;  and  a  princess  from  among  these  desert 
rovers  was  to  be  made  the  wife  of  the  great  Solomon. 

This  theory  was  never  accepted  by  many,  and  by 
scarcely  any  reverent  students  of  the  Word,  though 
Professor  Cheyne^  became  strangely  enamored  of  it 
and  thinks  that  ''when  Mr.  Macalister  maintains  that 
these  Egyptian  objects  (at  Gezer)  confirm  the  state- 
ment of  the  received  Hebrew  text  of  I  Kings  ix,  that 
Pharoah'  king  of  Egypt  went  up,  and  took  Gezer,  and 
burned  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  daughter,  Solomon's  wife, 
he  treads  upon  insecure  grounds.  That  the  place  re- 
ferred to  in  Kings  is  Mr.  Macahster's  Gezer  and  that 
Solomon's  father-in-law  was  king  of  Egypt,  are  both 
statements  which   seem   to   be   highly  disputable." 

The  "Desert  Egypt"  is  not  being  sustained  by  the 
results  of  archaeological  research.  The  voluminous  mass 
of  evidence  for  Israel's  relations  with  the  Egypt  of 
the  Nile  valley  cannot  be  set  aside  by  a  vapory  theory 
arising  out  of  a  few  obscure  passages  of  Oriental  litera- 
ture. All  the  work  of  Chabas,  of  Brugsch,  of  Naville, 
of  Petrie,  of  Miiller,  of  BUss,  and  of  Macahster  con- 
necting patriarchal  Israelite  and  Canaanite  history 
with  Egypt  cannot  be  swept  away  by  a  wave  of  the 
mythologist's  wand.  The  researches  at  Gezer  afford 
special  light  upon  this  theory.^  Gezer  was  a  marriage 
portion  of  that  princess  whom  Solomon  married,  a  part 
of  her  father's  dominion,  and  so  a  part  of  the  supposed 
"Musri,"  if  it  ever  existed;  and  if  so,  at  Gezer,  then, 


142  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

we  should  find  some  evidence  of  this  people  and  their 
civiUzation.  Of  such  there  is  not  a  trace.  But  instead 
we  find  from  very  early  times,  but  especially  at  this 
time,  Egyptian  remains  in  great  abundance.  The  evi- 
dence is  thus  almost  as  strong  against  "Musri"  as 
it  is  in  favor  of  Egypt.  For  a  civilization  cannot  exist 
without  manifestations.  There  cannot  be  a  civilization 
that  does  not  appear  any  more  than  a  refinement  or 
a  morality  that  does  not  appear.  Civilization  is  in 
this  respect  like  a  sound.  Where  there  is  no  mani- 
festation it  does  not  exist. 

Gezer  supplies  the  time  and  one  of  the  places  for 
"Musri"  manifestations,  if  the  ''Musri"  theory  be  true. 
But  the  ''Musri"  civilization  has  here  no  manifes- 
tations, and  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  resist  the  conclu- 
sion that  there  was  no  such  civilization.  The  argument 
e  silentio  is  valid  for  at  least  one  conclusion,  this, 
namely,  that  since  there  is  silence  there  is  no  sound. 
There  was  not  enough  "Musri"  civilization  to  make  a 
"sound"  in  its  own  territory.  While  of  such  a  place 
and  people  there  is  not  a  trace  at  Gezer,  remains  of 
the  real  and  only  Egypt  are  abundant  not  only  in  that 
age  but  from  the  time  of  the  Hyksos  King  Khayan, 
eight  hundred  years  or  more  before,  until  the  Neo- 
Babylonian  Empire  frightened  the  Hawk  of  Egypt 
back  to  abide  forevermore  among  the  palm  groves  of 
the  Nile. 

V.    THE    COMPARATIVE    UNIMPORTANCE    OF    MOSES    AS    A 

LAWGIVER 

This  is  a  theory  concerning  Moses,  more  often 
assumed    than   mentioned.     When   written    down   in 


UNIMPORTANCE  OF  MOSES  AS  A  LAW-GIVER        143 

black  and  white  it  is  rather  startUng — seems,  indeed, 
to  have  an  unholy  look.  Popular  respect  for  the  great- 
est character  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  ancient 
tradition  of  the  church,  and  in  the  ancient  world, 
causes  a  not  unnatural  modesty  in  those  who  hold 
such  a  theory,  which  restrains  them  from  too  frequent 
explicit  mention  of  it.  But  the  theory  is  widely  and 
necessarily  held  by  those  who  follow  fully  the  usual 
analysis  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  necessary  to  many 
who  probably  have  not  as  yet  recognized  its  necessity, 
or,  indeed,  given  it  a  serious  thought.  But  necessary 
it  is  whether  recognized  or  not.  For  when  Deuter- 
onomy is  ''found"  for  the  first  time  in  the  days  of 
Josiah  and  is  attributed  to  Hilkiah  or  some  other  and 
unknown  person  of  that  time,  when  the  code  of  Leviti- 
cus is  given  almost  in  toto  to  P,  another  great  unknown, 
and  the  legislative  matter  in  Exodus  ascribed  to  J, 
E,  and  P,  with  only  a  grudging  admission  that  some 
portion  of  it  might  be  as  old  as  the  days  of  Moses,  what 
is  left  to  Moses  but  the  Decalogue  and  perhaps  a 
portion  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant?^  The  critical 
microscopes  have  even  been  turned  upon  the  Ten 
Commandments.  Some  think  they  were  originally  in 
the  Hebrew  ''ten  words,"  possibly  from  Moses,  and 
that  all  the  remaining  portions  consist  of  additions; 
and  Budde  speaks  of  the  "impossibility  of  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Ten  Commandments. "^ 

When  all  this  is  done,  and  if  it  be  really  and  rightly 
done,  the  comparative  unimportance  of  Moses  as  a 
lawgiver  must  be  admitted  to  stand  as  an  accomplished 
fact.  This  is  an  assumption  which  underlies  the  "as- 
sured results"  of  criticism  today.  This  is  not  the  place 
to  pick  flaws  in  the  critical  method  that   produces 


144  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

such  "assured  results."  The  one  thing  to  be  noticed 
here  is  that  this  theory  concerning  Moses  as  a  law- 
giver is  not  sustained  by  archaeological  evidence.  It 
is  not,  indeed,  positively  refuted  in  the  way  that  critics 
so  often  demand  that  their  theories  be  refuted.  The 
broken  tablets  of  the  law  have  not  been  found  where 
Moses  dashed  them  into  pieces  on  the  slopes  of  the 
Mountain  of  the  Law,  nor  has  any  one  discovered  the 
''book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  by  the  hand  of  Moses" 
which  was  found  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  nor  has  the 
autograph  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses  bearing  the  copy- 
right of  the  newly  founded  Israelite  nation  yet  been 
secured!  But  the  intelligent  faith  of  the  great  common 
people  will  not  demand  any  of  these  things  or  any  such 
things.  It  will  rather  demand  that  those  who  present 
critical  theories  for  public  acceptance  shall  present  at 
least  a  little  archaeological  evidence  positively  support- 
ing those  theories.  Such  evidence  has  not  been  fur- 
nished for  this  theory.  On  the  contrary,  archaeological 
evidence  is  entirely  in  harmony  with  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  great  body  of  Israelite  legislation  and  there 
is  some  evidence  from  archaeology  which  contributes 
its  influence  very  positively  toward  such  authorship 
for  the  Pentateuch. 

Granting  that  God  in  his  revelation  always  chooses 
fitting  agents  and  a  suitable  age,  the  Precepts  of  Ptah 
Hotep  show  that  the  "wisdom  of  the  Egyptians," 
long  before  the  age  of  Moses,  had  attained  to  a  capacity 
for  moral  maxims  which  indicates  an  intellectual  and 
moral  stage  of  advancement  quite  consistent  with  the 
revelation  of  God  through  the  mind  of  Moses  as  we 
have  it  in  the  Decalogue  and  other  parts  of  the  Penta- 


UNIMPORTANCE  OF  MOSES  AS  A  LAW-GIVER        145 

teuch.  For  Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  "wisdom 
of  the  Egyptians." 

Again,  the  law  of  the  Pentateuch  is  a  code,  the 
separate  statutes  being  stated  abstractly,  as  applicable 
to  all  cases.  Here  is  not  merely  a  collection  of  court 
decisions  known  among  lawyers  as  common  law.  More- 
over, while  much  has  been  said  about  the  fragmentary 
character  of  the  laws,  and  some  appearance  of  frag- 
mentariness  may  duly  be  made  out,  because  of  the 
weaving  of  the  laws  into  the  connected  narrative  of 
the  story  of  the  journeyings,  yet  a  careful  study  of 
the  law  has  shown  that  it  is  a  well-systematized  Code. 
But  such  a  Code  is  not  untimely  in  Moses'  day.  The 
Code  of  Hammurabi,  probably  the  most  systematic 
Code  ever  produced,  coming  from  a  time  some  five 
centuries  earlier  than  Moses,  shows  that  even  for  so 
long  a  time  the  age  had  been  ready  for  the  production 
of  a  systematic  Code. 

The  many  library  marks  to  be  found  in  the  Penta- 
teuch are  perfectly  well  accordant  with  the  conditions 
in  the  Mosaic  age  and  no  more  discredit  the  real  author- 
ship of  Moses  than  the  more  numerous  library  marks 
discredit  the  real  authorship  of  Gibbon  in  his  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  or  of  Kurtz  in  his  Church 
History. 

These  various  items  of  archaeological  evidence  set 
wide  open  the  way  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  to  which  the  Mosaic  tradition 
underlying  the  promulgating  of  the  law  in  the  days 
of  Josiah  definitely  points.  That  such  a  Mosaic  tradi- 
dition  existed  at  that  time  is  certain.  Without  it  by 
no  possibihty  could  the  people  have  been  persuaded 


146  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

to  receive  with  authority  a  book  purporting  to  be  by 
him.  The  question  of  the  truthfulness  of  that  parti- 
cular claim  altogether  aside,  there  must  have  been 
such  a  national  hero  as  Moses  well  known  to  the  people, 
as  well  as  a  confident  belief  in  an  age  of  Hterature 
reaching  back  to  his  days,  else  the  Book  of  the  Law 
would  not  have  been  received  by  the  people. 

In  the  face  of  such  a  tradition,  which  it  is  much 
easier  to  believe  than  to  beheve  that  it  arose  without 
some  reasonable  justification,  the  effort  to  behttle  the 
importance  of  Moses  as  a  lawgiver  in  an  age  so  well 
fitted  for  the  production  of  laws  has  before  it  a  very 
difficult  task.  It  is  not  being  sustained  by  archae- 
ological evidence.  Indeed,  the  weight  of  archaeological 
evidence  bears  against  it. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  latest  and 
most  startling  of  the  critical  theories  of  the  present 
generation. 

VI.      THE   NATURALISTIC    ORIGIN   OF   ISRAELIS   RELIGION 
FROM  ASTRAL  MYTHS 

It  is  important  in  the  interest  of  fairness  in  the 
discussion  to  discriminate  sharply  and  clearly  between 
this  theory  of  Israel's  religion  and  the  others  in  the 
list  of  theories  now  held  which  are  not  being  sustained 
by  the  results  of  archaeological  research;  because  this 
theory  is  put  forward  by  those  who  antagonize  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  School  and  it  is  intended  to  displace 
that  whole  system  of  Biblical  criticism. 

The  real  founder  of  this  new  German  school  of 
criticism,  the  members  of  which  are  known  as  the  Pan- 
Babylonists  (for  a  very  sufficient  reason  which  will 


NATURALISTIC  ORIGIN  OF  ISRAEL'S  RELIGION       147 

presently  appear),  is  Professor  Winckler  of  Berlin,  and 
it  boasts  among  its  members  the  distinguished  Oriental- 
ists, Professors  Zimmern^  and  Jeremias^  of  Leipzig  and 
Jensen^  of  Marburg.  The  length  to  which  these  critics 
have  gone  in  their  speculation  has  appalled  the  most 
radical  representatives  of  other  schools  of  criticism  and 
is,  perhaps,  more  than  anything  else  in  the  discussions 
of  the  day,  responsible  for  the  reaction  toward  more 
sane  and  safe  speculation  in  Biblical  criticism.  Nothing 
makes  adventurous  persons  take  heed  to  their  ways 
more  than  to  see  some  still  more  venturesome  one  fall 
over  a  precipice.  Complete  presentation  of  the  specu- 
lations of  the  Pan-Babylonists  can  only  be  obtained 
from  their  own  works.  To  these  the  reader  is  referred 
and  also  to  the  admirable  brief  statements  in  English 
of  these  new  views  recently  prepared  by  Professors 
Barton"*  and  Clay,  some  extracts  from  which  will  suffice 
for  our  present  purpose. 

''What  occurs  on  earth  is  only  a  copy  of  what  oc- 
curred in  heaven.  Astrology,  therefore,  was  the  all- 
important  test  and  interpreter  of  ancient  history.  All 
ancient  nations,  including  Israel,  practiced  it  or  were 
influenced  by  it. 

''The  periodic  changes  in  the  positions  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  gave  rise  to  certain  sacred  numbers.  These 
Winckler  uses  to  show  the  bearing  of  the  Babylonian 
astral  mythology  upon  things  Israelitish.  According 
to  his  views,  not  only  is  the  Israelitish  cult  dependent 
upon  Babylonian  originals,  but  also  the  patriarchs  and 
other  leaders  of  Israel,  such  as  Joshua,  Gideon,  Saul, 
David,  and  others,  are  sun  or  lunar  mythological  per- 
sonages. 

"Abraham  and  Lot  are  the  same  as  the  Gemini, 


148  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

called  by  the  Romans  Castor  and  Pollux.  Abraham, 
together  with  his  wife,  who  was  also  his  sister,  are 
forms  of  Tammuz  (who  was  a  solar  god)  and  Ishtar, 
the  former  being  the  brother  and  bridegroom  of  the 
latter.  As  Ishtar  was  the  daughter  of  Sin,  the  moon- 
god,  Abraham  must  be  a  moon-god;  for  he  went  from 
Ur  to  Haran,  two  places  dedicated  to  that  deity.  Many 
circumstances  of  the  myths  concerning  Abraham  cor- 
roborate this.  The  three  hundred  and  eighteen  men 
who  were  Abraham's  allies,  in  the  fourteenth  chapter 
of  Genesis,  are  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  days 
of  the  year  when  the  moon  is  visible.  All  Babylonian 
gods  were  represented  by  numbers.  Kirjath-arba,  the 
one  center  of  Abraham  myths,  means  the  'city  of  Arba, 
or  four.'  Arba  must  then  be  the  moon-god  which 
has  four  phases.  Beersheba,  'the  seven  wells,'  another 
center  with  which  Abraham  myths  were  identified, 
also  represents  the  moon,  because  there  are  seven  days 
in  each  phase  of  the  moon.  Isaac,  who  lived  at  Beer- 
sheeba,  must,  therefore,  also  be  a  moon-deity.  The 
four  wives  of  Jacob  show  that  he  also  is  the  same. 
His  twelve  sons  are  the  twelve  months.  Leah's  seven 
sons  are  the  gods  of  the  week.  The  twelve  hundred 
pieces  of  silver  which  Benjamin  received  represent  a 
multiple  of  the  thirty  days  of  the  month;  and  the  five 
changes  of  garments  that  he  received  are  the  five 
intercalary  days  of  the  Babylonian  year."^ 

The  preposterous  character  of  some  of  these  specu- 
lations makes  them  really  laughable,  but  as  the  details 
of  the  theory  are  worked  out  by  the  followers  of  Winck- 
ler  they  become  horrible  and  at  last  blasphemous. 
Zimmern  thinks  "that  in  Israel  the  writer  considered 
Yahweh  to  be  identical  with  Marduk.     Later,  these 


NATURALISTIC  ORIGIN  OF  ISRAEL'S  RELIGION      149 

same  elements  of  the  Marduk  cult  were  applied  to 
Christ  by  the  Christian  Jews.  The  story  of  the  birth 
of  Christ  has  its  origin  in  the  fabled  birth  of  Marduk. 
Babylonian  elements  are  also  found  in  the  regal  office 
of  Christ,  as  well  as  in  His  passion.  Asshurbanipal, 
as  a  'penitent  expiator/  gave  rise  to  the  story  of  His 
weeping  over  Jerusalem  and  His  agony  in  the  garden. 
His  death  is  suggested  by  that  of  Marduk  and  Tammuz ; 
and  the  idea  of  His  descent  into  Hades  comes  from  the 
goddess  Istar's  descent.  The  resurrection  is  a  repe- 
tition of  Marduk  and  Tammuz  myths. "^ 

But  the  climax  of  the  profane  and  the  preposterous 
is  reached  by  Jensen  of  Marburg  in  these  words  as 
quoted  by  Professor  Clay:  ''The  old  Israelitish  history, 
the  history  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  has  collapsed,  and 
the  apostolic  history  has  been  exploded.  Babylon  has 
laid  Babylon  in  ruins — a  catastrophe  for  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  science,  but  truly  not  undeserved,  a 
catastrophe  for  the  mythology  of  our  church  and  syna- 
gogue, which  reaches  into  our  present  time  like  a 
beautiful  ruin."^ 

Only  the  necessity  for  a  clear  understanding  of  these 
blasphemous  speculations  in  order  that  the  claim  of 
the  support  of  archaeology  for  them  may  be  exposed 
justifies  setting  them  forth  here,  in  the  words  of  the 
devout  and  reverent  scholar.  Professor  Clay. 

This  theory  of  the  Pan-Babylonists  is  not  sustained 
by  the  results  of  archaeological  research.  There  are 
references  to  myths  in  the  Bible,  but  they  are  far  less 
frequent  than  in  English,  French,  German,  and  other 
modern  literature  and  no  more  significant  in  the  Bible 
than  in  such  literature.  Would  any  one  attempt  to 
convict  modern  history  and  other  forms  of  modern 


150  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

literature  of  being  but  myths  because  of  references  to 
Mars  and  war,  to  Venus  and  passion,  to  the  Lares  and 
Penates  of  our  hearth-stones,  to  Thor  the  thunderer 
and  to  Kris  Kringle  and  the  joys  and  expectancies  of 
childhood?  Ancient  myths  personified  human  virtues 
and  vices  and  so,  as  figures  of  speech,  passed  into 
modern  language  and  have  no  other  meaning  or  use 
in  modern  Uterature.  The  large  claims  made  by  the 
Pan-Babylonists,  the  advocates  of  this  theory  which 
would  turn  nearly  the  whole  Bible  into  myth,  for  the 
support  of  archaeology  is  fairly  justified  thus  far  and 
thus  far  only.  Archaeological  research  does  explain 
many  of  the  Biblical  references  to  myths  by  making 
fully  known  to  us  those  myths.  But  for  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  those  references  as  reads  the  myths  into  the 
Bible,  archaeology  furnishes  no  support  whatever.  Such 
a  method  as  reads  the  ancient  myths  into  history, 
psalm  and  prophecy,  even  into  the  evangel  and  the 
epistles  and  the  very  biography  and  teachings  of  Jesus 
himself,  would  convict  the  literati  and  even  the  theo- 
logians of  the  present  day  of  holding  to  the  Greek 
mythology  and  worshiping  Greek  and  Roman  and 
Scandinavian  gods.  The  very  names  of  the  week  would 
convict  us  all  of  being  pagans  by  such  methods  of 
literary  criticism. 

The  myths  of  the  ancient  Orient  also  personified 
human  virtues  and  vices  and  as  figures  of  speech  passed 
into  the  language  of  the  people  and  so  to  a  very  small 
degree,  indeed,  into  the  language  of  the  Bible.  The 
wonderful  transformations  the  Pan-Babylonists  make 
with  the  numbers  of  the  Bible  are  almost  too  absurd 
to  command  serious  attention.  They  remind  one  of 
the  tricks  with  numbers  with  which  magicians  enter- 


LATE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  151 

tain  their  audiences,  or  of  the  Baconian  cipher  with 
which  a  few  Uterary  people  have  amused  and  puzzled 
the  world  for  a  long  time;  or,  if  they  are  to  receive 
serious  attention  at  all,  it  is  only  such  as  must  be  given 
to  the  efforts  of  the  older  etymologists  and  a  few  in 
our  own  day  who  try  to  trace  linguistic  relationships 
between  the  most  distant  families  of  human  speech 
by  means  of  the  punning  resemblances  which  the  narrow 
limits  of  vocal  powers  make  it  possible  to  point  out 
between  any  two  languages  and  even  between  human 
speech  and  the  sounds  made  by  animals  and  birds. 
These  coincidences  in  numbers  are  no  more  important 
than  such  punning  etymologies. 

VII.    THE    LATE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

It  is  important  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  one 
question  to  which  we  are  to  seek  an  answer  concerning 
the  late  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  whether  or 
not  this  theory  is  being  sustained  by  the  evidence 
furnished  by  research  in  Biblical  archaeology.  The 
many  other  lines  of  argument  by  which  this  theory 
may  be  tested  will  be  noticed  no  farther  than  as  they 
may  be  incidental  to  the  line  of  this  archaeological 
inquiry. 

Formerly  this  theory  of  the  late  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  rested  upon  three  pillars:  the  ignorance  of 
the  patriarchal  age,  out  of  which  it  was  said  that  such 
a  literature  could  not  have  come;  the  marks  of  a  later 
age  upon  the  Pentateuch,  upon  its  diction,  its  laws, 
its  history;  and  last  and  chief  est,  the  literary  analysis 
of  the  Pentateuch,  breaking  it  up  into  fragments,  J,  E, 
P,  D,  R,  and,  by  some,  a  much  larger  number  of  divi- 


152  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

sions,  the  criteria  for  some  of  which  excludes  everything 
bearing  any  pecuHar  impress  of  an  earlier  age.  As 
a  matter  of  course,  in  accordance  with  this  criterion 
of  assignment,  these  particular  fragments  appear  to 
be  of  a  late  date  and  by  their  incorporation  into  the 
body  of  the  Pentateuch  necessarily  demand  a  late 
date  for  that  whole  portion  of  the  Bible. 

The  first  of  these  pillars  upon  which  this  theory 
rests,  the  ignorance  of  the  patriarchal  age,  has  alto- 
gether collapsed.  The  discovery  of  the  Tell  Amarna 
tablets  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  the  excavations 
at  Tell  el-Hesy,  Taanach,  and  Gezer,  together  with 
the  overwhelming  and  still  growing  evidence  of  the 
general  culture  and  refinement  of  that  age,  have  made 
it  desirable  and  convenient  for  a  great  many  to  forget, 
and  to  wish  others  to  forget,  that  such  a  conception 
of  the  patriarchal  age  was  ever  any  part  of  the  support 
of  the  theory  of  the  late  date  for  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  seem  ungracious 
toward  one's  opponents,  but  the  complete  presentation 
of  the  subject  here  demands  that  attention  be  called 
once  more  to  the  fact  that  this  that  was  once  a  support 
for  the  theory  of  the  late  date  for  the  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  has  collapsed  and  that  the  corner  sup- 
ported by  it  now  hangs  in  the  air.^ 

For  the  second  of  the  pillars  upon  which  this  theory 
has  rested  for  support,  the  marks  of  a  later  age  upon 
the  diction,  laws,  and  history  of  the  Pentateuch,  archae- 
ological data  can  be  cited  with  some  good  degree  of 
plausibility,  but  it  cannot  fairly  be  said  to  be  sustained. 
There  are  marks  of  a  later  age  in  the  laws,  in  the  history, 
and  sometimes  in  the  diction,  but  they  admit  of  a 
very  easy  and  natural  explanation.    It  is  not  at  all 


LATE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  153 

surprising  to  find  some  laws  in  the  Pentateuch  that 
seem  to  have  arisen  out  of  conditions  in  much  later 
times  and  many  laws  that  certainly  look  forward  to 
the  occupation  of  the  promised  land.  For  it  is  not 
unreasonable  that  some  laws  should  have  been  added 
to  meet  the  new  conditions  of  the  Kingdom  when  it 
was  established — -not  having  been  originally  contem- 
plated in  the  institutions  of  Israel — or  have  been  intro- 
duced in  connection  with  the  more  elaborate  ceremonial 
appropriate  to  the  temple.  And  that  there  should  be 
in  the  Pentateuch  many  laws  applicable  only  after 
the  occupation  of  the  land  of  Canaan  is  exactly  what 
is  to  be  expected  according  to  the  view  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  composed  during  the  wilderness  sojourn; 
for  at  the  first  giving  of  laws  and  again  at  the  com- 
position of  Deuteronomy,  according  to  that  view,  Israel 
was  expected  to  enter  immediately  into  possession  of 
the  promised  land. 

That  some  items  of  history  have  been  added  at  a 
later  time  is  admitted  by  all  of  every  school  of  criticism; 
just  as  many  works  of  great  men  have  been  published 
in  later  times  with  copious  notes  and  additions,  far 
more  copious,  indeed,  than  any  one  has  ever  claimed 
in  the  Bible.  Here,  for  example,  is  one  copy  of  Herod- 
otus in  a  single  duodecimo  volume  and  another  in  four 
octavo  volumes,  because  of  the  historical  notes  added 
by  the  editor.  Such  notes  are  now  clearly  distinguished 
from  the  original  text.  But  had  this  large  edition  of 
the  ancient  historian  been  issued  a  century  after  his 
death,  with  the  literary  form  and  according  to  the 
literary  methods  of  that  age,  there  would  have  been 
a  pretty  problem  here  also  for  the  literary  critics. 
But  especially  is  it  true  of  autobiographies  that  addi- 


154  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

tional  items  of  information  are  appended,  on  account 
of  the  death  of  the  author.  It  is  certain  that  this  has 
been  done  in  the  Pentateuch,  on  the  theory  that  it  is 
in  any  sense  the  work  of  Moses;  and,  when  the  differ- 
ence between  the  hterary  methods  of  the  ancients  and 
of  ourselves  is  taken  into  consideration,  it  no  more 
militates  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch than  against  the  authorship  of  many  modern 
autobiographies . 

That  the  diction  of  the  Pentateuch  should  seem  to 
have  some  marks  of  a  later  age  is  not  at  all  remarkable, 
nor  is  it  inconsistent  with  the  early  authorship  of  the 
book.  The  process  of  eUminating  obsolete  words  from 
sacred  books  has  been  going  on  under  the  very  eyes 
of  the  Enghsh-speaking  people  during  the  last  century. 
Why  should  it  be  thought  a  literary  impossibility  in 
the  millennium  before  Christ?  Tenaciously  as  the 
religious  spirit  clings  to  the  old  forms,  common  sense 
will  at  last  prevail  over  the  toleration  of  bad  sense  in 
the  literary  forms  of  expression  in  religion.  Then, 
words  thought  to  be  evidence  of  late  date  are  sometimes 
very  misleading.  They  may  indicate  nothing  more 
than  the  fact  that  every  author's  vocabulary  is  limited. 
No  one  ever  uses  all  the  words  of  his  time.  The  words 
that  seem  late  in  the  Pentateuch  may  have  been  in 
use  in  the  days  of  the  early  prophets  and  historians, 
but  not  used  by  them.  And  again,  what  seems  a  new 
word  may  be  but  the  recrudescence  of  an  old  word. 
Prince  Henry  of  Gennany  was  twitted  about  using 
American  slang  while  visiting  in  the  United  States 
because  he  said  on  one  occasion  that  he  must  ''hustle," 
but  retorted  with  the  information  that  "hustle"  is 


LATE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH    155 

a  good  old  English  word.  It  has  such  authority  for 
its  use  as  Scott,  Thackeray,  and  Froude.  It  had  been 
for  a  time  forgotten  but  had  come  to  the  surface  of 
the  English  language  in  a  new  land  and  a  later  age. 
Then,  in  addition  to  these  considerations  already 
mentioned,  the  small  number  of  words  which  can  be 
produced  from  the  Pentateuch  which  seem  to  be  late 
Hebrew,  and  the  absolute  lack  of  any  other  Hebrew 
books  of  the  early  period  for  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  with  which  to  make  comparison,  weakens 
the  force  of  the  objection  to  the  early  authorship  on 
account  of  diction  until  it  is  altogether  negligible. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  marks  of  early  author- 
ship in  the  diction  of  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  to 
which  none  of  these  explanations  are  applicable  and 
which  do  not  seem  to  admit  of  any  other  explanation 
than  that  of  early  authorship  itself.  The  examination 
of  a  few  of  these  words  will  indicate  how  very  far 
archaeological  evidence  is  from  supporting  the  theory 
of  the  late  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

A  somewhat  hazy,  precarious  clause  in  a  bargain 
with  the  Towarah  Bedouin  for  the  convoy  of  a  party 
to  Sinai  had  been  that  they  would  give  the  travelers 
a  glimpse  of  the  turquoise  mines. ^  So  they  peered 
under  great  rocks  and  into  crevices  where  real  gems 
could  be  found,  and  enjoyed  in  sober-mindedness  the 
thrill  of  expectation  which  the  romance  of  childhood 
with  its  dreams  of  gold  mines  had  awakened.  But 
the  greatest  marvel  of  that  day  was  to  find  the  gems 
not  in  crevices  or  peeping  out  of  dust  and  rubbish,  or 
like  nuts  in  a  shell  rolling  about  with  the  appearance 
of  worthless  pebbles,  but  embedded  in  the  very  heart 


156  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

of  the  solid  rock,  where  bhnd  but  patient  industry 
discovered  them  by  breaking  them  out  of  the  bed  in 
which  they  have  lain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world. 

Now  if  one  of  these  dusky  miners  should  exhibit 
a  large,  rare  gem  of  marked  peculiarities  of  shape, 
with  the  claim  that  it  had  come  from  that  mine,  and 
we  should  find  the  empty  matrix  in  a  rock  into  which 
every  nicety  of  the  gem  fitted  exactly,  or  if  we  found 
a  strange  hole  in  the  rock  and  the  miner  should  produce 
a  gem  which  exactly  fitted  it  and  say:  "I  found  it 
there,"  we  would  not  be  able  to  resist  the  conclusion 
that  the  miner's  story  was  true. 

Let  us  carry  this  simile  over  into  the  examination 
of  archaeological  evidence  on  this  question  of  the  early 
or  late  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  A 
host  of  treasure  seekers  in  Egypt — Chabas,  Brugsch, 
Naville,  Lieblein,  indeed  every  Egyptologist — in  search- 
ing expectantly  about  the  ruins  of  Egypt  have  found 
now  and  then  an  empty  matrix,  and  some  Old  Testa- 
ment writer  has  furnished  a  literary  gem,  whose  every 
peculiarity  fitted  exactly  into  it.  "Wlien  we  see  how 
exactly,  we  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  here 
also  the  miner's  story  is  true.  There  are  certain  books 
of  the  Bible  which  purport  to  have  had  Egyptian 
sources  or  associations  and  there  are  certain  literary 
correspondences  which  substantiate  the  claim,  certain 
gems  of  language  of  marked  peculiarity  for  which  the 
exactly  fitting  matrix  has  been  found  in  Egypt.  Thus 
these  correspondences  become  witnesses;  witnesses 
which  cannot  lie,  for  their  points  of  peculiarity  are 
too  many,  and  can  not  be  suborned,  for  their  testimony 
is  incidental  and  lies  outside  the  domain  of  human 
intention.     These  witnesses  testify  to  two  closely  re- 


EGYPTIAN  EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  PENTATEUCH  157 

lated  material  points  in  the  great  controversy  over 
the  Pentateuch:  first,  the  truth  of  the  patriarchal 
story,  and,  second,  the  time  of  the  Pentateuchal  record. 
There  is  a  long  list  of  Hebrew  words  of  marked  charac- 
teristics found  in  the  Egyptian  language  of  such  mean- 
ing and  use  and  at  such  a  time  as  to  indicate  the  presence 
and  great  influence  of  Semitic  people  in  Egypt,  an 
influence  which  could  only  have  been  exerted  by  large 
numbers  present  in  Egypt  for  a  long  time.  There  is 
striking  indication,  also,  of  the  slavery  of  those  Semitic 
people.  All  this,  showing,  as  it  does,  the  exact  his- 
torical truthfulness  of  the  patriarchal  stories,  creates 
a  presumption  of  the  early  writing  down  of  these 
stories.  But  in  the  citing  of  words  we  will  here  confine 
ourselves  to  those  linguistic  evidences  which  bear 
directly  upon  the  question  of  the  date  of  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch. 

We  take  up  now  this  Pentateuchal  question  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  indictment  against  Moses  be  a  true 
bill ;  or  whether  it  be  possible  to  vindicate  his  authority, 
or  at  least  to  render  innocuous  the  insinuations  and 
charges  made  against  it.  The  witnesses  to  be  intro- 
duced are  Egyptian  words  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  ac- 
crediting the  authorship  of  the  records  to  the  same 
age  as  the  events  recorded,  and  hence  the  date  of  the 
Pentateuchal  documents  to  a  time  not  long  subsequent 
to  the  patriarchal  events.  Incidentally  some  corrobo- 
rative evidence  also  will  appear. 

In  Bible  lands  names  were  and  still  are  significant. 
Among  the  first  questions  the  Egyptians  ask  concerning 
a  new  missionary  from  America  is,  ''What  does  his 
name  mean?"  Alas  for  the  missionary  whose  name 
either  by  translation   or  transliteration   into  Arabic 


158  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

happens  to  convey  a  disagreeable  meaning  to  the  Egyp- 
tian mind.  Names  in  that  part  of  the  world  today 
are  usually  religious  in  their  significance.  In  ancient 
Egypt  they  were  almost  always  so,  and  from  that  fact 
arises  great  help  to  the  student  of  the  history  of  that 
ancient  people.  It  comes  about  in  this  way.  The 
Egyptians  had  "gods  many  and  lords  many."  Fond 
parents  named  their  little  one  after  the  god  most 
honored  in  the  neighborhood  at  the  time,  or  because 
of  the  auspicious  event  of  the  birth.  But  one  god 
was  in  greatest  favor  at  one  time,  and  another  god  at 
another  time,  and  besides,  the  ascendency  of  certain 
gods  was  localized  in  certain  parts  of  Egypt  at  various 
periods  of  Egyptian  history.  It  thus  comes  about  that 
papa  and  mamma  in  naming  the  baby  in  old  Egypt 
were  constructing  a  kind  of  chronological  index  to 
Egyptian  history  (indeed,  one  of  the  best  we  possess), 
at  the  same  time  often  giving  a  good  clue  to  the  part 
of  Egypt  in  which  they  resided.  Thus  the  gods  of 
Egypt  did  for  Egyptian  history  on  a  far  larger  scale 
what  the  national  heroes  have  done  for  America. 
''George  Washingtons"  did  not  become  numerous  until 
after  1776,  nor  ''Abraham  Lincolns"  until  after  1861. 
Thus  it  happens  that  Joseph's  Egyptian  name,  Zaph- 
nath-paaneah,  and  the  name  of  Joseph's  Egyptian  wife, 
Asenath,  have  become  important  witnesses  in  the 
Pentateuchal  question.  Strange  to  say  they  have  been 
summoned  to  testify  by  both  sides  of  the  controversy. 
Some  years  ago  M.  Kraal  argued  from  the  then  known 
data'  that  names  of  the  meaning  of  these  names  were 
unknown  among  the  Egyptians  until  about  the  XlXth 
century  B.C.  which  would  bring  the  story  down  to 
the  time  of  Ahab  and  would  shut  Moses  completely 


EGYPTIAN  EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  PENTATEUCH  159 

out  of  the  case.  Now  this  is  exactly  the  conclusion 
reached  by  those  who  hold  to  the  critical  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  they  have  persistently  quoted  this 
opinion  of  Kraal,  and  of  Egyptologists  who  have  quoted 
Kraal,  from  that  day  to  this,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
great  Bible  Dictionaries  of  the  last  quarter  of  a  century, 
and  in  the  works  of  popular  writers  on  the  modern 
criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  such  as  Professor  George 
Adam  Smith^  and  Dr.  Driver.^  It  is  a  very  convenient 
way,  when  you  wish  to  find  something  and  find  just 
what  you  need,  not  to  find  anything  more.  That  is 
exactly  what  these  men  have  done  in  the  consideration 
of  this  subject,  having  found  this  that  suited  their 
theory,  and  which  was  as  much  as  was  known  at  the 
time  Kraal  wrote,  they  have  ignored  every  discovery 
on  the  subject  since  made.  One  might  search  almost 
in  vain  for  any  reference  in  their  writings  to  the  work 
of  Lieblein  in  his  study  of  Egyptian  names,  who  has 
pointed  out  among  the  names  of  Hyksos  kings,  who 
lived  and  ruled  in  Egypt  about  the  time  of  Apophis, 
the  traditional  Pharoah  of  Joseph,  three  names  of 
kings  formed  with  the  significant  and  troublesome  part 
of  Joseph's  name.  Nor  would  any  one  ever  learn  from 
critical  discussion  of  this  subject  that  Lieblein's  identi- 
fication of  Joseph's  name  in  the  Egyptian  is  better 
etymologically  and  far  more  exact  phonetically  than 
any  other  identification  of  the  name  which  has  been 
suggested.  Asenath  also  has  been  identified  as  a  name 
in  use  from  the  eleventh  dynasty  (long  before  the  time 
of  Joseph)  until  the  XVIIIth  dynasty  near  the  time 
when  arose  the  ''king  which  knew  not  Joseph." 

Thus  these  two  names  instead  of  being  fatal  to  the 
early  authorship  of  the  story  of  Joseph  are  in  harmony 


160  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

with  it,  and  actually  accredit  the  authorship  of  that 
narrative  to  an  age  not  much  later  than  that  of  Moses. 
For,  are  we  to  be  asked  to  believe  that  some  scribe 
of  the  days  of  Hezekiah  or  of  the  exile,  or  even  post- 
exilic  times,  was  an  Egyptologist  who  dug  up  the 
ruined  and  forgotten  archives  of  the  Hyksos  period, 
which  the  later  generations,  in  hatred  of  those  foreign 
rulers,  had  done  everything  in  their  power  to  destroy 
and  eradicate,  and  so  carefully  selected  names  which 
would  support  his  desire  to  have  the  people  receive 
this  story  as  a  genuine  one  from  the  hand  of  their 
great  national  hero,  Moses?  Or  must  we  prepare  our 
credulity  to  accept  the  alternative,  that  some  happy 
chance  directed  his  genius  in  selecting  or  inventing 
names  for  his  heroes  and  heroines,  which  only  a  Lieblein 
of  the  end  of  the  XlXth  century  a.d.  should  discover 
to  be  just  what  the  highest  art  could  have  produced? 
Surely  no  one  will  ask  us  to  believe  that  Providence 
took  a  special  hand  in  this  plan  to  impose  a  new  book 
on  an  unsuspecting  people  under  the  name  of  a  very 
early  author. 

The  only  credible  explanation  of  these  special  lin- 
guistic harmonies  is  that  the  documents  in  which  they 
are  found  come  from  an  age  before  the  traces  of  the 
Hyksos  kings  disappeared  into  oblivion,  which  cannot 
be  later  than  the  Mosaic  age — and  the  age  of  the 
Israelites,  who  alone  were  interested  in  keeping  alive 
in  Egypt  the  memory  of  those  days. 

Another  word  from  the  same  region  and  the  same 
period  gives  testimony  to  the  same  effect,  the  Egyptian 
word  "Aat."  We  have  heard  much  in  these  latter 
days  about  the  ''yellow  peril."  The  imagination  of 
many  statesmen,  or  at  least  alarmists  who  wish  to  be 


EGYPTIAN  EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  PENTATEUCH    161 

considered  statesmen,  see  it  hovering  upon  the  poUtical 
horizon  of  both  Europe  and  America.  Old  Egypt  in 
the  days  of  Joseph  and  the  Hyksos  kings  had  also  a 
"yellow  peril"  which  became  a  reality,  and  which, 
long  after  it  passed  away,  was  still  a  ''yellow  peril" 
to  the  fears  of  the  Egyptians.  They  called  it  "aat," 
which  means  "abomination"  or  "pest."  They  applied 
this  hateful  name  to  the  Hyksos  tyranny  and  to  all 
associated  with  those  foreign  kings.  Indeed,  so  spite- 
ful was  the  national  hatred  against  these  people,  and 
so  persistently  did  they  call  them  by  this  name,  that 
it  has  never  been  possible  to  learn  from  the  Egyptians 
the  ethnic  name  of  their  oppressors.  To  this  day  the 
race  and  nationality  of  the  Hyksos  is  involved  in 
something  of  mystery.  So  Joseph  said  to  his  brethren, 
"Every  shepherd  is  abomination  to  the  Egyptians." 
Now  the  Egyptian  word  "aat"  does  not  appear  in 
Genesis.  Being  not  a  proper  name,  but  a  mere  epithet, 
the  author  of  Genesis  did  not  transliterate  it,  but 
translated  it  into  the  Hebrew  by  the  very  exact  equiva- 
lent "toabah,"  i.e.,  "abomination."  The  Hyksos  were 
driven  from  Egypt  by  Amasis;  then  the  great  kings 
of  the  XVIIIth  dynasty,  the  Thothmes  and  Amen- 
hoteps,  established  firmly  the  eastern  frontier  of  Egypt, 
and  extended  the  empire  from  the  "river  of  Egypt" 
to  the  Euphrates.  "Aat,"  "abomination,"  that  ogre 
of  the  eastern  horizon,  disappeared  from  the  Egyptian 
imagination,  from  Egyptian  history,  and,  in  this  use 
the  word,  disappeared  from  the  Egyptian  language. 
Egyptian  pride  scorned  to  make  mention  of  the  time 
of  great  humihation  and  after  a  little  time  reference 
was  seldom  or  never  made  to  it.  And  yet  we  are 
asked  to  beheve  that  some  time  "before  the  time  of 


162  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Jeremiah,"  after  the  lapse  of  some  eight  hundred  years, 
or  even  in  the  time  of  the  exile,  after  a  thousand  years, 
some  Jewish  scribe  doing  the  desire  of  a  designing 
priesthood,  to  foist  upon  the  people  a  new  book  in  the 
name  of  Moses,  attained  to  such  a  philological  nicety 
as  the  special  use  of  this  EgjqDtian  word  ''aat,"  and 
used  it  correctly  long  after  this  special  use  of  it  had 
ceased  to  be  current  in  Egypt.  Rather  we  will  prefer 
to  accept  the  alternative  that  here  is  distinctively  the 
mark  of  authorship  contemporaneous  with  the  "yellow 
peril,"  or  at  least  within  the  memory  and  dread  of 
it  in  Egypt. 

Hawthorne  in  his  English  Note-Books  gives  account 
of  many  of  the  episodes  of  a  consul's  career  in  Liverpool 
in  the  fifties.  Among  other  things,  he  relates  how 
Englishmen  tried  to  palm  themselves  off  as  Americans 
in  order  to  obtain  some  favor  of  the  American  consul, 
perhaps  assistance  to  get  to  America  as  stranded  Ameri- 
can citizens,  and  that  he  was  always  able  to  detect 
them,  much  to  their  amazement.  The  one  place  where 
every  one  betrayed  himself  was  in  the  use  of  the  word 
''been,"  which  Americans  pronounced  like  ''bin"  and 
the  English  invariably  like  "bean."  The  truth  is  that 
art  can  never  perfectly  take  the  place  of  experience 
in  the  use  of  words.  The  historical  imagination  may 
be  possessed  and  cultivated  to  such  a  degree  of  per- 
fection that  one  may  faithfully  reproduce  the  atmos- 
phere and  the  color,  but  in  colloquial  use  of  words 
no  amount  of  study  can  ever  take  the  place  of  actual 
experience.  The  possibilities  of  variation  in  the  use 
of  words  is  so  infinite  that  sooner  or  later  art  will 
always  stumble  and  fall.    Where  there  is  no  stumbling 


EGYPTIAN  EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  PENTATEUCH    163 

we  may  know  of  a  certainty  that  it  is  not  art  but 
experience. 

Some  words  now  to  be  introduced  as  witnesses  are 
to  testify  to  this  effect,  that,  in  the  choice  of  words  of 
local  use  and  coloring,  the  writers  of  the  Pentateuchal 
documents  manifest  a  proficiency,  a  dexterity  indeed, 
that  plainly  shows  that  we  are  not  in  the  presence  of 
the  consummate  art  of  the  historical  novelist,  or  the 
pious  romancer,  or  the  interested  forger,  but  in  the 
presence  of  experience  only  supplied  by  actual  residence 
or  extended  intercourse.  The  Peruvians  have  a  word 
for  dry,  upland  pasture,  '^ pampas,"  which  has  found 
such  acceptance  with  the  Latin-Americans  that  its  use 
has  spread  over  much  of  the  arid  region  of  South 
America,  and  has  made  its  entrance  even  into  other 
nations  of  people  having  intercourse  with  that  part  of 
the  world  as  the  most  fitting  name  for  this  particular 
pasture-land,  and  for  no  other.  Egypt  also  has  peculiar 
pasture-lands,  those  among  the  luxuriant  grasses  of 
the  swamp  lands  along  the  Nile  and  the  canals.  The 
ancient  Egyptians  had,  likewise,  a  distinctive  word 
for  that  kind  of  pasture  land,  the  word  "akhu."  The 
Hebrews  in  their  dry  and  hilly  country  have  had  many 
expressions  for  the  grass  of  the  field,  and  used  especially 
five  words^-"desheh,"  ''hatsir,"  ''yerek,"  "eseb,"  and 
''asab."  These  words  they  used  throughout  the  Old 
Testament.  They  had  no  need  at  home  for  such  a 
distinctive  word  as  the  Egyptians  employed,  for  they 
had  no  such  pasture-lands.  And  even  when  they  were 
carried  into  captivity  and  sat  "by  the  rivers  of  Baby- 
lon," if  they  had  found  need  for  such  a  word  in  their 
language,  it  would  have  been  the  Babylonian  and  not 


164  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  Egyptian  word  which  they  would  have  taken  up 
into  the  language.  Yet  in  Pharaoh's  dream,  recorded 
in  the  Pentateuch  (a  story  that  is  born  in  Egypt,  and 
grows  up  in  Egypt,  and  never  quite  loses  sight  of 
Egypt),  the  "meadow"  in  which  the  kine  fed  is  called 
by  the  Egyptian  word  "akhu";  and  in  the  book  of 
Job,  where  are  other  marks  of  Egyptian  association, 
when  it  is  said :  ''Can  the  flag  grow  up  without  water?' ' 
the  same  Egyptian  word  is  used,  and  nowhere  else 
in  the  whole  Bible  is  this  word  found.  Was  this  proba- 
bly art,  or  was  it  more  probably  experience? 

Linen  was  largely  devoted  to  a  sacred  use  in  Egypt. 
The  mummy-cloth  has  been  found  upon  the  most  criti- 
cal examination  to  be  every  thread  linen.  Priests  of 
ancient  Egypt  were  clad  also  in  linen.  For  this  ''fine 
white  linen"  the  Egyptians  had  also  a  distinctive  word, 
"shesh."  What  figures  more  conspicuously  in  the 
description  of  the  Hebrew  ritual  than  the  "fine  white 
linen"  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  which  description 
belongs  we  are  told  to  a  much  later  period?  The 
Hebrew  language  had  its  own  words  for  linen,  four 
in  number, — "bad,"  "pishteh,"  "sadin,"  and  "aitun," 
which  are  used  throughout  the  Old  Testament.  In 
one  instance,  1  in  a  book  having  no  Egyptian  sources 
or  associations,  even  when  the  linen  of  Egypt  is  men- 
tioned, it  is  called  by  a  pure  Semitic  word,  "aitun." 
But  in  the  Pentateuch  the  Egyptian  word  "shesh" 
is  used  thirty-four  times,  as  the  distinctive  Egyptian 
word  for  the  "fine  white  linen"  of  the  priests,  linen 
which  they  had  brought  with  them  from  Egypt. 

Bayou  is  a  provincial  word  in  America,  belonging 
exclusively  to  the  region  of  the  lower  Mississippi.  In 
Louisiana,   its  home,   it  means  simply  "channel  for 


EGYPTIAN  EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  PENTATEUCH    165 

water."  And  'Hhe  bayou"  means  the  particular  channel 
at  hand.  The  ancient  Egyptians  had  also  a  word  of 
very  similar  meaning  and  belonging  as  much  to  the 
Nile  valley  as  bayou  to  the  lower  Mississippi.  This 
word  was  ''yeor,"  a  channel  for  water,  applied  indis- 
criminately to  the  river  and  to  the  numerous  canals 
and  channels  by  which  the  water  was  conducted  through 
the  land.  It  was  not  in  any  sense  a  proper  name  for 
the  Nile,  which  the  Egyptians  called  "Hapi,"  but  a 
common  noun,  like  "bayou,"  which,  upon  becoming 
definite,  meant,  like  ''the  bayou,"  simply  ''the  par- 
ticular channel  at  hand."  Its  use  as  thus  described 
is  very  common  in  both  Egyptian  and  Coptic,  or  later 
Egyptian.  In  exactly  this  same  sense  it  was  taken 
over  into  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  and  espe- 
cially the  Pentateuch.  The  word  occurs  in  sixty-six 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  but  one  of  these 
passages,  Daniel  xii,  5-7,  where  the  word  occurs  four 
times,  is  there  any  doubt  about  its  reference  to  Egypt. 
The  passage  in  Daniel  is  in  dispute.  Some  believe 
it  to  be  a  prophetic  passage  referring  to  Egypt,  but 
it  is  usually  accounted  to  be  historical  and  not  of 
Egypt.  But  in  any  case  it  follows  upon  an  extended 
prophecy  relating  to  Egypt,  if,  indeed,  it  is  not  a  part 
of  that  prophecy,  and  the  use  of  the  word  here  might 
easily  be  accounted  for  by  the  coloring  of  the  context. 
Aside  from  this  passage,  in  all  the  other  sixty-five 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where  the  word  occurs, 
in  some  of  which,  several  times,  it  is  of  the  streams  of 
Egypt.  The  Biblical  writers  no  more  think  of  using 
"yeor"  of  streams  elsewhere  than  in  Egypt,  than  would 
American  writers  tell  of  "bayous"  in  New  England. 
This  is  of  special  significance  in  the  Pentateuch.     For 


166  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

it  is  to  the  Pentateuch  that  the  use  of  this  word  is 
almost  entirely  confined.  Its  use  elsewhere  is  confined 
to  occasional  passages,  as  in  the  prophecies  relating 
to  Egypt.  The  occasional  use  of  this  word  in  other 
parts  of  the  Bible  or  even  in  the  Pentateuch,  if  it  were 
used  but  seldom  there,  would  not  signify  much,  and 
might  be  allowed  to  pass  unnoticed.  But  its  extended 
use  in  the  Pentateuch  with  such  absolute  accuracy 
cannot  be  credibly  accounted  for  except  as  the  result 
of  experience.  But  the  full  significance  of  its  use  there 
does  not  appear  until  we  observe  a  further  peculiarity 
of  that  use.  The  Hebrew  has  two  words  for  river, — 
^'nahar"  and  "nakhal" — which  are  used  exclusively 
in  all  those  parts  of  the  Bible  not  purporting  to  speak 
of  Egypt  or  have  relations  with  Egypt.  ''Yeor"  is 
there  very  completely  supplanted  by  these  words.  In 
the  Pentateuch  these  words  are  of  very  frequent  occur- 
rence but  not  of  the  streams  of  Egypt.  Each  of  them 
occurs  thirteen  times  in  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
but  not  in  a  single  instance  of  the  streams  of  Egypt. 
When  the  writer  refers  to  Egypt,  he  drops  into  the 
use  of  the  word  "yeor,"  just  as  naturally  as  an  American 
writer  into  the  use  of  "bayou"  when  referring  to  the 
lower  Mississippi  region.  So  strictly  is  this  distinction 
in  the  use  of  words  observed  that  when  mention  is 
made  of  the  little  desert  stream  called  the  "river  of 
Egypt,"  which  was  not  an  Egyptian  stream  at  all,  but 
marked  the  borderland,  it  is  not  called  "yeor,"  but 
given  the  Hebrew  name,  "Nakhal."  Such  absolutely 
discriminating  use  of  the  colloquial  meaning  of  words 
with  such  perfect  accuracy  throughout  such  an  exten- 
sive literature  seems  incredible  of  any  writer  not  to 
the  language  born.     And  when  the  various  portions 


EGYPTIAN  EVIDENCE  CONCERNING  PENTATEUCH    167 

of  the  Pentateuch  are  attributed  to  several  different 
writers  in  different  lands  and  far  distant  ages  the 
phenomena  present  a  literary  impossiblity. 

Now  these  three  words  which  have  been  examined, 
all  testify  to  the  one  point,  perfect  accuracy  in  the 
peculiar  colloquial  use  of  common  words,  not  proper 
names,  to  which  art  can  never  attain,  and  for  which 
only  actual  association  can  account.  The  author  of 
the  Pentateuch  must  have  been  familiar  by  actual 
colloquial  use  with  the  Egyptian  tongue.  Hawthorne's 
test  in  the  colloquial  use  of  words,  not  proper  names, 
would  catch  a  scribe  of  the  times  of  Hezekiah  or  Josiah 
or  the  exile  just  as  certainly  as  it  caught  tricky  men 
at  Liverpool  a  half-century  ago.  That  any  one  should 
have  imitated  the  colloquial,  provincial  peculiarities 
so  perfectly  at  so  great  a  distance,  in  days  of  so  little 
intercourse  or  correspondence,  is  incredible,  not  to  say 
inconceivable.  "Romancers,"  ''historical  novelists," 
"pious  allegorists,"  "forgers,"  as  you  please,  must  have 
been  skillful  beyond  the  imagination  of  the  heart  of 
man  to  conceive,  to  have  attended  to  such  a  little 
thing  over  so  wide  a  field  of  literature  without  a  single 
mistake. 

Thus  it  appears  that  there  are  some  marks  of  late 
authorship  in  the  Pentateuch  which,  however,  all  admit 
of  easy  and  natural  explanation,  but  on  the  other  hand 
there  are  marks  of  early  authorship  which  admit  of 
no  explanation  except  that  afforded  by  early  author- 
ship itself.  This  does  not  prove  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  but  it  does  point  to  the  Mosaic  age  as 
the  time  of  its  composition,  and  especially  it  makes 
absolutely  certain  that  the  theory  of  the  late  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is  not  being  supported  by  archae- 


168  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

ology  at  this  point  of  literary  marks  of  the  time  of 
authorship. 

The  third  pillar  of  support  for  the  theory  of  the  late 
date  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  literary 
analysis  of  the  books,  is  in  reality  the  theory  itself  in 
the  concrete;  for  having  decided  upon  criteria  of  the 
analysis  in  harmony  with  the  theory  of  the  late  date 
and  then  having  parcelled  out  the  materials  to  the 
various  documents  according  to  the  criteria,  it  is  found 
that  the  theory  is  supported  by  the  results.  Of  course! 
As  when  a  crippled  man  puts  down  his  own  crutch 
to  support  himself  upon  it,  he  finds  that  it  reaches  to 
the  ground.  It  was  made  exactly  the  right  length  to 
do  so. 

The  parceling  out  of  the  materials  of  the  books  of 
the  Pentateuch  according  to  the  criteria  propounded 
by  the  theory  of  the  analysis  into  documents  mostly 
of  a  late  date  does  make  a  literary  analysis  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  wonderful  harmony  with  the  theory, 
just  as  in  every  other  feat  of  legerdemain  we  may  get 
out  of  a  box  whatever  is  put  into  it.  If  the  criteria 
were  supplied  independent  of  the  theory  and  not  to 
serve  it,  the  results  of  their  application  might  rightly 
command  our  attention.  But  as  they  are  in  part 
assumed  and  are  altogether  a  part  of  the  theory  these 
wonderful  results  of  the  critical  analysis  are  not  archae- 
ological evidence  nor,  indeed,  any  other  kind  of  evi- 
dence, though  superficially  they  seem  to  be  testimony 
contemporaneous  with  the  composition  of  the  books 
themselves.  They  are  the  implements,  indeed,  of  the 
theory,  whereby  the  materials  are  manipulated,  they 
are  no  more  than  fingers  of  the  prestidigitator.  A 
theory  that  works  in  history  and  in  literature  is  not 


CRITICAL    CRUTCHES  169 

by  that  fact  proved  to  be  true.  The  theory  of  the 
late  date  for  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  however 
beautifully  it  may  work  out  as  a  theory  when  applied 
to  the  materials  of  the  books,  is  not  established  until 
corroborated  by  independent  facts  such  as  only  archae- 
ology can  supply.  To  this  present  time  it  has  not 
supplied  such  facts.  On  the  contrary,  as  we  have 
seen,  there  are  many  evidences,  of  which  we  have 
examined  a  few,  which  point  very  emphatically  toward 
authorship  for  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  not  later 
than  the  Mosaic  age. 

The  theories  considered  in  this  chapter  and  the  pre- 
ceding one  do  not  exhaust  the  list  of  reconstructive 
theories  but  include  the  principal  ones,  and  are  suffi- 
cient to  illustrate  the  fact  that  such  theories  are  not 
being  sustained  by  archaeological  research.  There  are 
many  things  in  the  results  of  archaeological  investi- 
gation which  are  neutral,  do  not  positively  corroborate 
any  particular  view  of  Scripture;  and  many  results 
also  which  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  Biblical 
questions.  But  where  there  is  such  bearing  it  is  never 
of  such  a  character  as  positively  to  sustain  these  recon- 
structive theories.  Indeed,  however  much  is  said  about 
the  "harmonizing"  of  archaeological  finds  with  "the 
positions  generally  held  by  critics"  or  "being  favorable 
to  them,"  no  one  can  point  to  a  single  definite  particular 
of  archaeological  evidence  by  which  any  one  of  these 
reconstructive  theories  has  been  positively  corroborated 
and  sustained. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

Fallacies:  Sources  of  Differing  Conclusions 

Among  Honest  and  Sincere  Seekers 

After  Truth 

We  have  considered  each  of  these  reconstructive 
theories,  presented  in  the  two  immediately  preceding 
chapters,  singly  and  in  detail.  There  remains  on  the 
whole  subject  a  fifth  and  most  important  question 
relating  to  all  these  theories  alike.  It  may  well  be 
asked,  How  can  it  be  that  sincere  and  honest  men  of 
great  scholarship  have  indorsed  Biblical  theories  of  a 
reconstructive  character,  if  they  be  so  doubtful  when 
tested  by  the  results  of  archseological  research?  The 
answer  is  simple  enough;  they  do  not  see  them  in  that 
light.  But  why  do  they  not  see  them  in  that  light, 
if  that  be  the  light?  Such  difference  of  opinion  among 
sincere  men  of  high  attainments,  can  exist  only  through 
the  subtle  influence  of  fallacies,  which  have  been  allowed 
unawares  to  creep  somewhere  into  the  processes  of 
thought.  It  becomes  any  one  to  speak  modestly  when 
he  alleges  fallacy  in  the  mental  processes  of  another. 
He  who  criticizes  another's  logic,  does  by  his  criticism 
put  his  own  logic  on  trial,  and  the  multitude  in  the 
great  amphitheater  of  public  opinion  decides  between 
the  contestants  in  the  arena  by  thumbs  up  or  thumbs 
down.  To  this  tribunal  -we  must  submit  the  case. 
The  fact  is  that  these  reconstructive  theories  are  not 
being  supported  by  archseological  evidence,  though  held 
by  men  of  the  highest    attainments    in    scholarship. 

170 


FALLACIES  INTRODUCED  BY  PRESUPPOSITIONS   171 

In  explanation  of  this  state  of  things,  a  few  of  the 
fallacies  will  here  be  pointed  out  through  which  some 
of  the  best  scholarship  of  the  world,  has,  as  it  seems  to 
many,  fallen  into  error  in  Biblical  criticism. 

I.  THE  FALLACY  INTRODUCED  BY  REASON  OF 
PRESUPPOSITIONS 

What  one  sees  from  any  given  standpoint  depends 
in  part  upon  the  direction  in  which  he  looks.  Two 
persons  looking  in  opposite  directions  from  the  same 
standpoint  will  often  have  before  them  very  different 
landscapes.  Presuppositions  determine  the  direction 
in  which  a  man  looks  and  the  theories  which  he  forms 
will  accord  with  things  as  he  sees  them.  A  man's 
theories  must  fit  in  with  his  presuppositions;  he  has 
no  disposition  to  theorize  in  any  other  way.  So  it  is 
the  presuppositions  of  the  reconstructive  criticism  which 
give  its  vision  and  which  require  the  reconstruction. ^ 
A  theory  of  reconstruction  follows,  then,  as  a  necessity 
and  in  accord  with  the  presuppositions.  It  cannot  be 
said  that  the  reconstruction  came  first  and  independ- 
ently. The  existence  of  documents;  i.e.,  the  existence 
of  library  marks  in  the  Pentateuch  was  as  far  as  Astruc 
went  toward  reconstruction.  He  still  held  to  the  Mosaic 
authorship.  Other  men  with  far  different  presupposi- 
tions, the  presuppositions  so  manifest  in  the  current 
form  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  today,  took  these 
literary  marks  suggested  by  Astruc  and  worked  out  a 
reconstruction  not  necessitated  by  the  literary  marks 
but  in  accord  with  their  own  presuppositions.  But 
the  presuppositions  of  the  reconstructive  criticism  are 
not  the  presuppositions  of  the  book  itself;  immediate 


172         THE  DECIDING  VOICE   OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

creation,  the  supernatural  in  religion,  the  fall  of  the 
race,  objective  revelation,  and  regeneration.  The  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  were  constructed  in  accord  with 
these  presuppositions.  The  question  of  the  essential 
truthfulness  or  falsity  of  the  presuppositions  in  either 
case  does  not  enter  into  the  question  here.  The  point 
is  that  the  character  of  the  book  must,  by  the  laws  of 
the  mind,  correspond  to  its  presuppositions.  But  the 
presuppositions  of  the  reconstructive  criticism  are  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  those  of  the  book:  instead  of 
immediate  creation,  mediate  creation;  instead  of  the 
supernatural  in  religion,  God  working  wholly  through 
the  natural;  instead  of  the  fall  of  the  race,  the  rise  of 
the  race;  instead  of  any  objective  revelation,  a  wholly 
subjective  revelation;  instead  of  regeneration,  evolution. 
Their  theory,  then,  corresponding,  as  it  must,  to  their 
presuppositions,  cannot  be  the  theory  upon  which  the 
book  was  really  constructed.  A  most  familiar  illus- 
tration of  this  is  to  be  seen  in  the  radically  differing 
sources  of  the  Civil  War  in  America  suggested  from 
the  same  data,  because  presented  respectively  by  North- 
ern and  Southern  men  with  their  radically  differing 
presuppositions.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  this  argu- 
ment applies  only  to  the  work  of  the  final  redactor  who 
put -the  materials  together  and  left  the  books  as  we 
now  have  them.  For  that  is  to  beg  the  question  by 
assuming  the  correctness  of  the  analysis  which  produced 
the  fragmentary  materials  and  so  required  the  help 
of  a  redactor,  but  the  correctness  of  the  analysis  is 
the  heart  of  the  whole  question  at  issue. 

So  the  reconstruction  rests  upon  the  presuppositions 
of  the  critics.     These  being  radically  different  from 


fallacies:  deduction  without  comparison    173 

those  of  the  book,  yield  necessarily,  a  very  different 
result.  Men  with  such  presuppositions  arrive,  logically, 
honestly,  sincerely,  at  such  conclusions. 

II.    THE   fallacy   of  DEDUCTION  WITHOUT  COMPARISON 
OR   FROM    INSUFFICIENT   INDUCTION 

The  distribution  of  materials  in  the  analysis  of  the 
Pentateuch,  especially,  and  in  some  measure  of  other 
parts  of  the  Bible,  begins  and  in  large  part  proceeds, 
by  means  of  lists  of  words  thought  to  be  peculiar  to 
certain  assumed  authors,  or  to  certain  ages  of  Hebrew 
literature.  Next  to  the  fallacy  of  presuppositions,  this 
might  be  called  a  fundamental  fallacy  of  the  current 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  fallacy 
lies  in  this,  that  there  is  no  comparison,  without  which 
deduction  is  utterly  worthless,  or,  at  best,  the  induction 
is  so  insufficient  as  to  make  the  comparison  practically 
worthless. 

Hebrew  literature  of  ancient  times  consists  of  one 
book  and  a  few  brief  inscriptions  of  very  limited  vocabu- 
lary. Or,  considering  the  separate  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  so  many  books,  as  must  be  done  in 
criticism,  there  is,  then,  but  one  book  or  one  document 
or  one  small  group  of  documents  of  very  limited  extent 
from  any  given  age  or  author.  That  certain  words  are 
not  found  in  any  one  of  these  documents  or  groups 
of  documents  proves  nothing  as  to  the  age  of  the 
words  or  of  the  documents.  No  one  author,  in  two 
or  three  pages  or  in  a  hundred  pages,  uses  all  the 
words  of  a  language  which  are  current  in  his  time, 
or  even  all  the  words  of  his  own  vocabulary.     The 


174         THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

subject,  the  circumstances,  the  purpose,  the  state  of 
the  author's  feelings  and  the  tone  adopted  for  the 
occasion,  and  many  other  things,  some  of  which  can 
never  be  known  to  anybody  but  himself,  influence  an 
author's  choice  of  words.  If  there  were  an  extensive 
literature  by  the  same  author  or  of  the  same  age,  any 
words  under  consideration  which  do  not  appear  in  this 
might  appear  in  that.  To  say  that  one  book  or  one 
portion  of  a  book  is  earlier  or  later  than  another,  because 
a  certain  word  appears  or  does  not  appear  in  it,  when 
there  is  absolutely  not  another  scrap  of  Hebrew  liter- 
ature of  that  age  or  by  that  author  with  which  to  com- 
pare it,  is  an  exhibition  of  logical  method  which  might 
pass  among  the  pupils  of  a  primary  school,  but  is 
unworthy  of  a  school  of  Biblical  criticism.  This  fallacy 
of  deduction  after  defective  comparison  or  no  com- 
parison at  all,  introduced  into  the  premises,  vitiates 
the  whole  process  of  reasoning  which  follows,  though 
it  be  conducted  according  to  the  most  rigid  logic  and 
in  the  utmost  candor  and  sincerity.  Scholarship  and 
piety  even  avail  nothing  anywhere  along  the  line,  if 
this  fallacy  has  been  introduced  at  the  beginning,  so 
that  no  one  may  rightly  question  the  sincerity  and 
the  earnestness  of  purpose  of  one  whom  this  slip  in 
formal  logic  has  led  into  the  wrong  path. 

III.    THE    FALLACY    OF   SEEKING    FOR   DISCORD 

Criticism  is  not  faultfinding,  but  it  very  easily 
becomes  so.  And  when  it  sets  out  on  a  course  of 
reconstruction  which  questions  the  integrity  and  trust- 
worthiness of  the  documents  to  which  it  is  applied, 
the  disposition  to  find,  fault,  to  look  for  discord,  is 


fallacies:  seeking  for  discord  175 

irresistible,  indeed,  it  is  essential  to  the  process.  But 
it  is  a  fallacious  method  which  is  very  apt  to  nullify 
processes   of  thought. 

It  is  as  though  a  man  took  one  road  at  the  forks  and, 
though  finding  it  rough  and  hard  and  unpromising, 
yet  follows  it  persistently  to  where  it  falls  over  the 
precipice,  insists  that  that  is  the  end  of  all  things  and 
jumps  over;  whereas  the  one  thing  wrong  is  that,  instead 
of  searching  all  roads,  he  took  the  wrong  road  at  the 
forks  and  followed  it  to  the  end.  No  one  can  question 
the  sincerity  of  the  despair  that  prompted  him  to  leap 
to  his  death.  But  had  he  searched  all  roads  before 
finally  choosing  one,  he  might  have  traveled  in  comfort 
and  peace  and  safety  to  a  happy  destination. 

Again,  no  jury  in  court  would  be  willing  to  convict 
a  man  of  lying  or  of  perjury  because  there  is  a  way  in 
which  he  may  be  made  to  appear  to  be  guilty  without 
inquiring  most  carefully  whether  his  words  and  his  acts 
admit  of  any  explanation  consistent  with  his  veracity. 

But  the  analytical  criticism  sets  out  upon  its  divisive 
and  destructive  and  reconstructive  course,  finding,  as 
is  natural  enough  when  things  are  pulled  to  pieces, 
confusion  growing  worse  confounded  as  it  proceeds, 
yet  keeping  on  and  asking  others  to  follow  upon  this 
road  to  the  precipice.  Is  it  surprising  that  cautious 
persons  pause  and  try  some  other  road  before  the  final 
leap?  It  is  sometimes  said  that  conservatism  in  Bibli- 
cal study  is  narrow.  Yet  it  is  especially  in  conservative 
schools  today  that  all  roads  are  searched,  all  views  ex- 
amined. Perhaps  it  is  because  it  is  so  that  they  are 
conservative.  We  do  not  question  the  scholarship  and 
candor  and  sincerity  of  purpose  of  those  who  devote 
themselves  so  exclusively  to  one  line  of  progress  open 


176  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

to  criticism,  but  it  would  be  an  exceedingly  interesting 
experiment  for  them  to  make  trial  of  equal  candor  and 
sincerity  in  examining  all  roads.  Those  who  seek  dis- 
cord are  certain  to  find  it.  Only  those  who  seek  also 
for  harmony  can  be  sure  whether  or  not  harmony 
exists. 

IV.    EXCLUDING   OR   IGNORING   PART  OF  THE   EVIDENCE 

Another  fallacious  method  is  the  dangerous  practice 
of  excluding  or  ignoring  part  of  the  evidence.  The 
ancient  Orient  left  great  treasures  of  art  and  literature 
most  of  which  have  been  lost,  alas,  perhaps  forever. 
Some  of  that  literature,  however,  has  never  been  lost, 
the  most  important  of  which  are  certain  writings  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  especially  the  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Hagiographa.  We  call  these  Scripture.  They 
are  none  the  less  Literary  remains  of  antiquity. 

Some  remains  of  antiquity  were  recovered  a  long 
time  ago,  especially  at  the  time  of  the  revival  of  letters. 
Notable  among  these  remains,  in  addition  to  the  great 
mass  of  poetry,  tragedy,  and  essays,  are  the  remains  of 
certain  travelers,  geographers,  and  historians,  as  Her- 
odotus, Strabo,  Syncellus,  and  Eusebius.  This  whole 
class  of  literature  we  call  Classics,  but  they  also  are 
literary  remains  of  antiquity. 

Then,  many  things  are  being  now  discovered,  tablets, 
bricks,  inscribed  columns,  temples  and  tombs,  and  many 
merely  material  objects  not  bearing  any  inscription 
which  yet  also,  as  well  as  the  inscriptions,  throw  much 
light  upon  the  civilization  of  ancient  times,  its  art, 
its  learning  and  its  religion.       These  things  we  call 


fallacies:  excluding  part  of  the  evidence  177 

Arch^ological  Discoveries.  They  also  are,  in  large 
part,  literary  remains  of  antiquity. 

Thus  all  these  alike,  whether  Scripture  or  Classics 
or  Arch^ological  Discoveries,  are  remains  of  antiq- 
uity and  as  archaeological  material  are  of  equal  rank 
and  value  according  to  their  character.  But  by  very 
many  critics  they  are  not  so  treated.  On  the  contrary, 
they  propose  to  apprehend  one  of  these,  the  Script- 
ture,  thrust  it  into  the  prisoner's  box,  deny  it  the 
inalienable  right  of  a  prisoner  before  conviction  to  be 
heard  in  his  own  defense  without  undue  prejudice, 
summon  all  the  others  as  witnesses  against  it  in  an 
attempt  to  convict  it  of  untrustworthiness,  and  if  any 
inscription  of  a  boastful  old  heathen  king  can  be  found 
to  say  a  word  against  the  statements  of  the  Bible, 
loudly  proclaim  that  the  Scriptures  have  been  dis- 
credited. This  method  of  procedure  neglects  testi- 
mony and  reaches  a  conclusion  upon  but  a  part  of  the 
evidence.  Such  a  method  is  unfair  and,  in  the  name 
of  logic  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  spirit  of  fair-play,  must  be 
protested  against.  The  Bible  itself  is  archaeological 
evidence,  the  best  and  the  most  voluminous  on  the 
subjects  it  touches  and  equally  entitled  to  a  hearing 
with  all  the  other  kinds  of  archaeological  evidence  on 
those  subjects;  and  is  not  to  be  thus  so  easily  outlawed 
and  condemned  on  the  authority  of  any  or  all  of  the 
other  kinds  of  evidence. 

A  recent  volume  by  the  Manchester  University^  con- 
tains a  learned,  comprehensive,  and  really  very  helpful 
review  of  Assyriological  evidence  on  the  period  of 
Israel's  middle  and  later  history  by  Professor  Hope 
Hogg,  since  deceased,  which  may  be  cited  as  a  typical 


178  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

example  of  this  fallacy  of  neglecting  a  part  of  the 
evidence.  It  is  used  as  an  illustration  at  this  point 
not  because  it  is  unusual,  but  because  it  is  so  usual  and, 
not  being  controversial,  has  not  the  excuse  of  self- 
defense,  and  being  announced  as  "Recent  Assyriology: 
its  bearing  on  our  Views  of  the  History  of  Israel," 
might  be  expected  to  supplement  each  source  of  evi- 
dence from  the  other.  If  an  archaeological  inscription 
from  some  Canaanite  or  Assyrian  source  had  been  in 
hand  of  an  extent  equal  to  that  of  the  historical  books 
of  the  Bible  which  cover  this  part  of  Israel's  history 
under  review  and  which  recorded  the  private  life  and 
daily  habits  of  men  during  that  period,  it  is  safe  to 
say  that  there  would  have  been  scores  or  even  hundreds 
of  references  to  such  a  document.  Yet  here  are  these 
historical  books  full  of  archaeological  material,  such  as 
is  needed  to  fit  in  with  the  Assyriological  evidence 
adduced  and  to  confirm  its  aptness  by  filling  up  its 
gaps,  evidence  differing  as  archceological  material  in  no 
respect  whatever  from  such  supposed  document  except 
that  it  has  never  been  lost,  yet  in  this  long  review  of 
twelve  thousand  words  there  is  scarce  one  reference 
to  the  archaeological  material  of  that  age  furnished  by 
these  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  They 
are,  seemingly  as  a  matter  of  course,  put  on  trial  and 
remanded  to  silence  until  the  verdict  shall  be  rendered. 
Yet  Professor  Hogg  was  a  sincere,  candid,  and  courteous 
scholar.  He  was  only  taking  for  granted  one  of  the 
false  conceptions,  and  following  unquestioningly  one 
of  the  fallacious  methods  of  the  times. 


fallacies:  unscientific  speculation         179 
v.  unscientific  speculation 

Perhaps  the  most  specious  and  hence  the  most  danger- 
ous of  all  the  fallacies  by  which  men  deceive  themselves 
and  others  in  the  critical  controversies  of  the  present 
day  is  the  fallacy  of  unscientific  speculation. 

Speculation  is  the  faculty  of  wonder  in  exercise. 
The  child  says  "I  wonder,"  and  following  the  impulse 
of  his  curiosity,  he  grows  and  learns.  This  faculty  of 
wonder  is  the  chief  spring  of  action  for  both  intellectual 
development  and  the  acquisition  of  knowledge.  In 
like  manner,  for  a  like  purpose  and  with  like  propriety, 
the  scientist  may  say  ''I  wonder."  Thus  speculation 
is  a  legitimate  scientific  method. 

But  the  speculation  itself  must  be  legitimate  and 
scientific.  Legitimate  speculation  starts  from  known 
facts,  proceeds  in  the  direction  indicated  by  them,  and 
never  goes  beyond  the  bounds  of  possible  compatibility 
with  them.  Discovery  may  in  its  final  leading  tran- 
scend all  bounds,  but  speculation  should  keep  within 
the  horizon. 

Speculation  is  intellectual  ballooning.  Scientific  spec- 
ulation is  like  ballooning  with  an  anchor.  The  aero- 
naut from  a  selected  place  rises  far  above  it,  gets 
a  wider  view,  makes  observations  from  a  new  altitude, 
and  is  able  to  alight  in  safety  and  at  will  at  the  point 
from  which  he  started.  Unscientific  speculation  is  like 
one  ballooning  without  an  anchor.  This  aeronaut  may 
start  from  the  same  safe  place  as  the  other,  enjoys  at 
first  the  same  enlarging  of  horizon,  but  is  subject  to 
every  wind  that  blows,  is  carried  whither  he  wills  not 
and  often  knows  not,  cannot  return  at  will  and  it  may 


180        THE   DECIDING   VOICE    OF   THE   MONUMENTS 

be  not  at  all,  and  may  alight  in  safety,  but  often  ends 
his  career  in  disaster. 

Scientific  speculation  has  done  much  for  Bibhcal 
research.  It  is  that  exercise  of  the  religious  soul  in 
an  attitude  of  faith  to  which  was  made  the  promise  of 
the  Spirit  who  should  lead  ''into  all  truth."  The  whole 
sum-total  of  modern  learning  is  the  result  and  outcome 
of  scientific  speculation.  But  unscientific  speculation 
is  the  plague  of  research  work.  It  is  the  black  death 
of  the  learned  world.  If  a  scholar  contracts  it,  his 
case  is  usually  hopeless.  Its  ravages  are  acknowledged 
and  deplored  on  all  hands,  by  all  research  workers  and 
in  every  department  of  investigation. 

It  becomes  every  one  to  be  modest  about  giving 
specific  illustrations  of  this  fallacy  from  the  field  of 
controversy,  especially  critical  controversy.  But  it 
does  seem  perfectly  safe  to  point  out  some  things. 
When  critics  ignore  the  only  statements  made  any- 
where in  the  world  concerning  the  exodus  and  the 
wanderings  of  Israel  and  proceed  to  construct  a  totally 
different  history,  involving  a  different  length  of  time, 
different  circumstances,  a  different  number  of  people, 
different  religious  habits,  and  a  different  outcome,  for 
all  of  which  assumed  facts  there  is  no  source  at  all, 
whatever,  but  a  subjective  one,  it  is  not  rash  to  say 
that,  if  the  speculator  has  any  anchor  at  all,  he  is 
dragging  it  hopelessly.  When  the  early  Palestinian 
history  of  the  tribes,  recorded  in  simple,  unvarnished 
narrative,  without  the  sHghtest  literary  indication  of 
allegory,  parable,  personification,  or  legend,  is  trans- 
formed by  critical  speculation  into  a  complete  series 
of  shadow  pictures  cast  upon  the  curtain  of  antiquity 
by  the  highly  wrought  religious  fervor  and  imagination 


fallacies:  unscientific  speculation         181 

of  much  later  times,  in  which  is  concealed  for  us  in 
reality  a  totally  different  history  of  tribal  development 
in  southern  Palestine  and  Arabia  in  which  names, 
places,  and  events  are  absolutely  changed,  where  even 
the  Davidic  history  becomes  unrecognizable,  and, 
indeed,  no  clue  remains  anywhere  to  the  original  intent 
of  the  Biblical  writers,  but  the  critic  is  obliged  to  bring 
the  whole  new  presentation  of  the  narrative  out  of 
the  domain  of  subjectivity — when,  I  say,  speculation 
soars  aloft  and  afield  like  this,  surely  such  speculation 
is  unscientific.  To  speak  plainly,  such  speculators 
have  no  ''historical  sense."  They  put  mere  fancy  in 
its  place. 

Thus  have  been  presented  a  few  of  the  principal 
fallacies,  the  seductive  snares  of  which  serve  to  explain 
some  of  the  otherwise  unaccountable  differences  among 
scholars  today.  In  such  ways  earnest,  honest,  and 
sincere  men  are  holding  and  teaching  views  which  call 
upon  us  to  place  faith  and  hope  for  eternity  in  them, 
which  yet  are  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  Bible 
story  itself,  and  are  not  being  sustained  by  the  material 
evidence  brought  to  light  from  the  actual  life  of  the 
time  of  revelation.  Certainly  there  are  few,  if  any 
of  them  who,  like  the  biologist  Haeckel,  have  been 
charged  with  making  their  own  materials  for  illustra- 
tion, photographing  the  creation  of  their  own  hands 
for  the  sustaining  of  their  theories  and  the  deluding 
of  their  followers.  The  great  and  ultimate  hope  which 
shines  through  all  the  clash  and  confusion  of  controversy 
is  this  all  but  universal  sincerity  of  purpose  and  effort 
to  find  the  truth.  Sooner  or  later  it  will  be  found  by 
all.  The  needle  may  be  disturbed  by  many  things, 
but  at  last  it  will  come  back  to  the  true  course.     How- 


182  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

ever  much  fallacies  may  influence  thinking  for  a  long 
time,  logic,  which  is  but  the  academic  name  for  conm^ion- 
sanse,  is  certain  to  prevail  in  the  end.  The  Spirit  will 
lead  "into  all  truth"  and  all  shall  ultimately  see  it 
whether  they  will  nor  not. 


PART  III 

PROGRESS 


In  any  review  of  the  results  of  archaeological  research  in  the  Bibli- 
cal field  it  is  of  the  first  importance  to  assign  to  the  subject  of  identi- 
fications the  first  place,  out  of  which  it  has  often  been  crowded,  and 
to  chronology,  in  its  present-day  form,  the  last  place,  as  being  in 
the  modern  rigid  conception  of  it,  clearly  not  in  the  ancient  Oriental 
mind  at  all. 

Rightly  to  adjust  ourselves  between  Israel's  transcendent  impor- 
tance as  the  depositary  of  revelation  and  the  channel  of  the  world's 
hope  of  salvation,  and  Israel's  international  insignificance  and  the 
oft-repeated  humiliation  of  her  sovereignty  as  the  football  of  empires 
is  the  great  problem  of  the  comparison  between  Bible  history  and 
archaeological  results  in  Bible  lands. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

The  Beginnings  of  History 

There  has  been  given  in  Part  II  a  systematic  history 
of  the  bearing  of  the  results  of  archseological  research 
upon  the  questions  raised  by  criticism,  with  a  sufficient 
number  of  illustrations  to  make  clear  the  nature  of  the 
results  in  all  parts  of  the  field.  But  this  discussion  of 
Archaeology  and  Criticism  would  be  incomplete  with- 
out an  orderly,  sjnnmetrical  view  of  the  Biblical  narra- 
tive in  the  light  in  which  the  present  results  of  archse- 
ological research  make  it  to  appear. 

Much  is  said  of  the  ''assured  results"  of  criticism. 
Perhaps  it  may  not  be  presumptuous  to  make  a  modest 
presentation  of  what  seems  to  be  the  ''assured  results" 
of  archaeology  with  a  setting  of  the  one  over  against 
the  other  that  there  may  be  an  impartial  judgment 
between  the  two.  Such  a  contrast  ought  not  to  be 
necessary,  or  even  possible.  For  it  is  quite  true  that 
there  can  be  no  conflict  or  contrast  between  the  real 
results  of  archseological  research  and  a  correct  criticism. 
But,  to  say  the  least,  surely  neither  archaeologists  nor 
critics  claim  infallibihty.  Moreover  they  do  not  have 
infallibility,  whether  they  claim  it  or  not.  "Assured 
results"  are  not  as  well  "assured"  on  either  side  as  they 
might  be,  for  human  fallibility  mars  all  human  research. 
So,  nothing  but  willful  blindness  or  blind  willfulness 
can  lead  either  critics  or  archaeologists  to  ignore  the 
fact  that  the  "results"  of  archseological  research  gener- 

185 


186  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

ally  accepted  by  archseologists  and  the  '^  results"  of 
criticism  usually  set  forth  in  these  days  as  ''assured" 
are  out  of  harmony. 

If,  then,  we  get  into  the  stream  of  Bible  history  and 
journey  down  it,  noting  by  the  way  what  seem  to  be 
''assured  results"  of  archaeological  research  and  the 
Hght  in  which  these  "results"  set  out  the  Bible  history 
and  Bible  literature  and  Bible  tradition,  the  intelligent 
reader  may  be  left  to  himself  to  decide  whether  the 
lack  of  harmony  between  the  "assured  results"  of  archae- 
ology as  the  archseologists  see  them  and  the  "assured 
results"  of  criticism  as  the  critics  see  them,  is  to  be 
laid  at  the  door  of  the  archaeologists  or  of  the  critics, 
and  whether  the  correct  setting  of  Scripture  be  the 
background  which  archaeology  provides  or  the  back- 
ground which  criticism  provides. 

In  noting  archaeological  results  along  the  devious 
course  of  the  stream  of  Bible  history  we  pass  through  in 
regular  order  five  distinct  periods  of  that  history: 
First,  The  beginnings  of  history;  Second,  The 
Patriarchal  Period,  chiefly  in  Palestine  and  Eg5T)t; 
Third,  The  Tribal  Period,  in  Egypt,  the  Sinai 
Peninsula,  and  the  Promised  Land;  Fourth,  The 
National  Period,  chiefly  in  Palestine,  throughout  the 
rise,  "decline,  and  fall  of  the  IsraeUte  Empire;  Fifth, 
The  Ecclesiastical  Period,  in  the  East  and  in  the 
West,  from  New  Testament  days  on.  Consideration 
of  the  last  of  these  will  be  omitted,  as  it  has  been 
throughout  this  book,  not  because  it  is  unimportant, 
but  because  it  has  not  so  much  to  do  with  the  considera- 
tion of  the  "present  truth."  At  a  later  time  it  may  be 
presented. 


HANDMAIDS    OF   HISTORY  187 

I.    THE  HANDMAIDS  OF  HISTORY 

In  this  historical  journey,  as,  indeed,  in  all  historical 
study,  there  are  three  handmaids  which  will  serve  us. 
These  three  handmaids  of  history,  in  the  order  of  their 
importance,  are  Geography,  Ethnology,  and  Chro- 
nology. 

The  three  important  requisites  of  testimony  in  a 
court  are  the  place,  the  person,  and  the  time.  However 
important  the  events  narrated,  the  narrative  does  not 
constitute  evidence  unless  the  place  can  be  given.  If 
the  place  can  be  given,  then  there  is  some  evidence, 
though  the  witness  be  not  able  to  name  the  persons  or 
give  the  date.  If,  in  addition,  he  can  name  the  persons, 
then  very  important  testimony  is  afforded,  though  the 
time  of  the  event  be  unknown  to  him.  If,  now,  to  the 
place  and  the  persons  he  can  add  the  exact  date,  the 
evidence  is  complete.  It  is  important  carefully  to 
note  this  order  here,  for  by  a  reversal  of  the  order  and 
a  consequent  minimizing  of  the  importance  of  geography 
and  topography  in  Biblical  discussions  and  the  thrust- 
ing of  chronology  into  the  first  place,  the  results  of 
archaeological  identifications  have  been  belittled  and 
the  importance  of  critical  difficulties  about  petty  appar- 
ent discrepancies  in  dates  greatly  magnified. 

Geography  is  first  in  importance  in  history  as  in 
evidence  in  court.  No  progress  whatever  toward  intelli- 
gence in  the  study  of  history  can  be  made  until  we 
have  some  answer  to  the  question  "Where?"  and  the 
better  the  answer  the  greater  the  progress.  The  most 
interesting  and  even  startling  story  of  events  is  no  more 
to  us  than  a  legend  until  we  can  in  some  way  locate  it, 
can  fit  it  into  a  place  in  the  world's  history.     So  with 


188  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  identification  of  the  places  in  the  Bible  history; 
instead  of  being  shoved  aside,  as  of  little  more  than 
curious  interest,  they  are  to  be  received  as  of  the  first 
importance,  without  some  more  or  less  definite  idea 
of  which,  nothing  else  is  important  at  all. 

But  political  geography  is  inseparably  bound  up  with 
ethnology.  Indeed,  it  is  the  existence  of  the  various 
peoples  that  draws  many  of  the  lines  of  the  various 
places,  so  that  in  the  study  of  history,  ethnography 
and  geography  have  almost  identical  lines.  The  answer 
to  the  question  ''Where?"  concerning  any  events  of 
history  usually  gives  practical  answer  to  the  question 
''Who?"  But  all  the  lights  and  shadows  of  the  picture 
cannot  be  gotten  aright  without  exact  and  detailed 
information  upon  the  subject  of  ethnology.  And  exact 
answers  to  the  questions  "Where?"  and  "Who?"  will 
give  us  real  history  even  if  we  cannot  answer  the  ques- 
tion "When?"  and  know  little  or  nothing  of  the  mere 
literary  questions  which  are  now  so  much  thrust  into 
the  foreground  of  public  attention. 

Last  of  all  in  importance  among  the  handmaids  of 
history  is  chronology,  which  yet  is  made  to  play  so 
important  a  part  in  the  critical  method;  and  it  is  of 
still  less  importance  than  it  would  otherwise  be,  because, 
while  place  and  race  are  of  the  same  significance  now 
as  of  old,  the  world's  conception  of  chronology  has 
radically  changed  since  the  introduction  of  calendars 
made  according  to  astronomical  time  and  under  the 
influence  of  the  use  of  clocks  and  watches.  By  these 
means  has  come  into  general  use  an  epochal  chronology 
which  arranges  all  history  primarily  in  lines  of  succes- 
sion, and  there  has  come  at  the  same  time  a  mathe- 
matical exactness  in  the  noting  of  time  of  which  ancient 


HANDMAIDS  OF  HISTORY  189 

peoples  of  Bible  lands  hardly  dreamed.  Without  these 
ideas,  they  necessarily  viewed  history  rather  upon 
planes  of  contemporaneity  and,  where  they  looked  along 
lines  of  succession  at  all,  gave  more  attention  to  the 
order  and  perspective  of  events  than  to  the  flight  of 
time.  Man's  relation  to  life  rather  than  his  relation 
to  time  was  the  informing  principle  of  their  historical 
records. 

The  attempt  to  force  all  their  statements  into  a 
scheme  of  epochal  chronology  according  to  astronomical 
time  is  responsible  for  no  little  of  the  confusion  which 
criticism  sees.  If  critics  would  give  more  time  to 
arranging  the  characters  of  ancient  history  upon  the 
field  and  among  their  fellows  where  those  characters 
are  well  acquainted  than  to  the  attempt  to  fit  them 
into  a  chronological  system  to  which  they  were  stran- 
gers, much  more  naturalness  and  harmoniousness  would 
be  found  in  the  Bible  story.  The  critical  method  at 
this  point  is  wholly  illogical.  The  chronological  state- 
ments of  the  ancients  must  be  considered  from  the 
standpoint  of  their  chronological  conceptions,  not  ours. 
We  must  ask  a  man  what  he  means,  not  tell  him. 

Now  in  any  review  of  the  results  of  archseological 
research  it  is  of  first  importance  to  give  all  these  hand- 
maids of  history  their  proper  order  and  consideration, 
to  assign  to  the  subject  of  identifications  the  first 
place,  out  of  which  it  has  been  crowded,  and  to  chro- 
nology in  its  present-day  form,  the  last  place,  as  being 
in  the  modern  conception  of  it,  clearly  not  in  the  ancient 
Oriental  mind  at  all. 

The  possibility  of  the  results  of  research  giving 
a  vision  of  the  historical  setting  of  the  Bible,  har- 
monious,   reasonable,    complete,    satisfying,    must  be 


190  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  final  test  of  the  archaeological  method,  and,  if  that 
method  be  brought  to  a  satisfactory  degree  of  per- 
fection, the  final  test  also  of  the  Biblical  narrative.  If 
archaeology  can  never  present  a  complete,  reasonable, 
harmonious,  vision  of  the  historical  setting  of  the  Bible, 
then  as  a  method  it  will  fall  short,  and  cannot  be  finally 
conclusive.  And  if  the  method  can  attain  to  such 
satisfactory  degree  of  perfection,  then  the  Biblical 
narrative  must  stand  or  fall  before  it.  For  at  the  last 
analysis,  the  results  of  archaeological  research  are  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  vision  of  the  ''historical  imagi- 
nation" in  the  concrete,  the  mental  picture  of  the  times 
of  the  Bible  turned  into  hard,  material  facts.  It  sup- 
plies the  actual  setting  into  which  Scripture  ought  to 
fit,  and,  if  it  be  true,  will  fit.  Though  research  is 
able  to  supply  only  a  few  points  irregularly  placed 
round  about  the  whole  circumference  of  the  events, 
yet  the  narrative  if  true,  will  exactly  fit  at  every  one 
of  these  points;  as  the  correct  ground-plan  of  a  house 
exactly  fits  upon  the  few  remaining,  disconnected  parts 
of  the  foundation  which  a  destructive  fire  has  left. 

The  value  and  importance  of  the  results  of  archae- 
ological research  in  Bible  study  consists  especially  in 
providing  facts  with  which  to  test  theories  and  in 
searching  for  Bible  history  in  the  field,  supplying  such 
results  as  do  turn  the  "historical  imagination"  into 
the  concrete  to  such  an  extent  as  to  prove  up  or  to 
discredit  the  whole  territory.  The  former  of  these, 
the  providing  of  facts  with  which  to  test  theories,  has 
been  discussed  in  Parts  I  and  II.  It  remains  to  take 
up  now,  in  Part  III,  the  larger  and  more  constructive 
work  of  so  making  an  archaeological  survey  of  the 


RECOVERY  OF  HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  SCRIPTURE  191 

Biblical  field  as  to  determine,  if  possible,  the  degree 
of  the  integrity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Biblical 
records. 

It  may  well  be  asked,  Can  archaeological  evidence 
do  this?  and  it  will  be  profitable,  preparatory  to  that 
survey,  to  consider  and  illustrate  the  possibility  of 
reaching  any  definite  and  reliable  conclusions  concern- 
ing historical  documents  of  such  extent  and  vitally 
important  character  by  means  of  such  fragmentary 
evidence  as  archaeological  research  supplies.  It  is 
better  to  determine  this  question  upon  its  own  merits 
before  attempt  is  made  to  apply  such  evidence  to 
so  important  a  case  as  Bible  history. 

Those  who  search  for  coal  lands  in  which  to  invest 
and  who  find  what  seems  to  them  a  hopeful  territory, 
proceed  to  test  it.  They  make  a  boring  and  find  at  a 
certain  depth,  between  certain  geological  strata,  a  layer 
of  coal  of  a  certain  quality  and  thickness.  Then  at 
another  distant  point  in  the  territory  they  make  another 
test  boring,  then  another  and  another  and  another,  at 
points  properly  related  to  each  other,  around  the  edge 
of  the  land  and  through  the  center.  Perhaps,  if  they 
are  unusually  cautious,  they  sink  a  shaft  at  one  of  these 
points  and  drive  a  tunnel  through  the  coal  to  another. 
If,  now,  they  find  at  the  same  depth,  between  the 
same  geological  strata,  the  same  vein  of  good  coal  at 
all  these  points  and  even  continuous  and  uniform  in 
the  connecting  tunnel,  they  will  be  perfectly  satisfied 
that  that  stratum  of  coal  underlies  the  whole  territory. 

Ancient  history,  indeed  all  history,  lies  in  layers; 
layers  in  the  ascent  of  civilization,  and  actual,  material, 
layers  in  the  debris  left  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  in 


192  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

undisturbed  places.  The  archaeologist  is  not  able  to 
uncover  the  whole  territory;  some  portions,  indeed, 
have  been  disturbed  and  the  layers  of  history  destroyed. 
But  when  he  has  made  several  test  examinations,  at 
far  distant  and  properly  distributed  points,  and  has 
found  at  the  same  period,  between  the  same  historical 
strata,  a  certain  layer  of  history,  and  especially  when 
he  has  been  in  a  few  cases  able  to  connect  some  of  these 
distant  points  and  has  found  the  same  layer  of  history 
continuous  and  uniform,  he  also  may  conclude  unhesi- 
tatingly that  similar  history  underlies  the  whole  terri- 
tory, though  he  is  able  to  touch  it  at  but  few  places. 
Or  take  another  illustration  of  a  very  different  charac- 
ter. Between  Florence  and  Venice  lies  the  snow-capped 
range  of  the  Apennines.  One's  train  draws  out  from 
Florence  amidst  the  fertile  gardens  and  vineyards  of 
the  valley  and  begins  the  ascent  of  the  mountain  to 
cross  over.  In  a  little  time  one  enters  a  long  tunnel 
and  emerges  high  up  among  the  olive  orchards.  After 
a  few  moments  he  plunges  again  into  the  mountain, 
circling  round  and  round  and  coming  out  far  above  the 
vineyards  and  olive  groves  among  the  oaks  and  chest- 
nuts. His  eyes  are  scarcely  accustomed  to  this  pleasant 
view  until  he  rushes  again  into  the  darkness.  Round 
and  around  he  goes  in  the  bowels  of  the  mountain  only 
to  appear  once  more  in  the  blazing  sunlight,  this  time 
among  the  conifers  and  stunted  mountain  oaks.  For 
a  last  time  he  enters  a  dark  hole,  rushes  on  in  the  gloom 
to  reappear  at  the  summit  of  the  pass  amidst  the  ever- 
lasting snow.  Then  down, "down,  around  and  around, 
in  and  out,  until  he  reaches  the  beautiful  eastern  plain 
of  Italy,  and  sees  the  gardens  and  the  vineyards  once 
more  about  him. 


RECOVERY  OF  HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  SCRIPTURE  193 

Now,  he  has  in  fact  seen  but  very  little  of  the  Apen- 
nines. He  has  been  going  in  and  out  of  holes  and 
catching  only  glimpses  of  the  mountain  range,  but  he 
can  have  no  doubt  that  he  has  crossed  over  from  one 
side  to  the  other. 

So  the  Bibhcal  archaeologist  does  not  see  everything 
as  he  crosses  any  range  of  ancient  history.  He  goes 
in  and  out  of  holes  and  only  catches  glimpses  of  things; 
nevertheless  he  does  get  at  last  a  persuasion,  an  irre- 
sistible persuasion,  of  the  existence  and  character  of 
the  whole  territory. 

The  fact  is  that  fragmentary  evidence,  if  it  be  une- 
quivocal and  properly  distributed  and  interrelated,  may 
decide  conclusively  concerning  a  very  large  territory, 
much  of  which  is,  in  detail,  untouched.  This  is  equally 
true  whether  the  territory  be  on  the  surface  of  the 
earth  or  on  the  plane  of  human  history.  So  that  the 
fragmentary  evidence  produced  by  archaeological  re- 
search, if  it  be  properly  distributed  and  interrelated, 
may  conclusively  attest  the  existence  and  character  of 
a  very  large  scope  of  history,  though  a  great  portion 
of  that  history  be  still  untouched. 

Having  thus  examined  and  illustrated  the  validity 
of  the  archaeological  method  of  proving  up  the  Biblical 
field,  let  us  now,  as  rapidly  as  possible,  survey  that 
field  and  see  the  Biblical  narrative  as  it  appears  in 
the  present  light  from  archaeological  research.  Since 
Part  n  deals  with  illustrations  of  Bible  history  from 
archaeology,  and  Part  III  is  to  give  a  comprehensive 
view  of  the  Bible  as  archaeological  research  makes  it 
appear,  it  is  inevitable  and  indeed,  desirable,  that  some 
repetition  in  the  use  of  materials  and  occasionally  even 
in  statements  should  occur. 


194  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Served  by  the  handmaids  of  history  and  having  this 
view  of  the  effectiveness  of  archaeological  evidence 
before  us,  we  turn  now,  to  consider 

II.   THE  DISPERSION 

The  Lord  planted  a  garden  ''eastward  in  Eden." 
The  streams  mentioned  in  connection  with  this  garden 
form  the  great  Euphrates  system.  The  garden  was 
located,  according  to  the  description  given  in  the  Bible, 
somewhere  toward  the  lower  part  of  the  great  valley. 
For  a  river  "went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden" 
and  from  the  garden  it  was  divided  "into  four  heads," 
not  "four  mouths."  A  garden  so  situated  could  not 
have  been  very  far  up  the  stream;  must,  at  least  have 
been  as  far  down  as  where  all  the  four  branches  were 
united  into  one  stream.  The  garden  has  not  been 
definitely  located  by  archaeological  evidence,  but  it  is 
very  significant  that  all  traceable  lines  of  the  world's 
great  emigrations,  when  followed  back  toward  the 
beginning,  invariably  center  from  all  parts  of  the  world 
toward  a  certain  small  area  in  western  Asia. 

The  historical  method  of  the  Bible  in  its  early  parts 
and,  indeed,  in  a  general  way  throughout,  is  to  give 
the  history  of  the  Gentile  nations  first  in  brief  outline 
and  then  the  account  of  the  chosen  line  of  revelation 
and  redemption  more  in  detail.^ 

Of  the  first  dispersion  of  the  human  race  over  the 
surface  of  the  earth  we  know  almost  absolutely  nothing 
aside  from  the  statements  of  the  Bible.  Of  speculation, 
scientific  theory,  there  is  much  that  is  reasonable,  but 
of  real  historical  statement  there  is  nothing  else  that 
presents  even  a  reasonable  claim.     The  second  dis- 


RISE    OF   CIVILIZATIONS  195 

persion,  however,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible  is  being 
exactly,  and  as  investigation  progresses,  more  and  more 
fully,  confirmed  by  the  results  of  archaeological  research. 
That  from  a  central  point,  somewhere  in  Mesopotamia, 
the  Hamitic  branch  of  the  race  migrated  to  the  south- 
west, the  Japhetic  branch  to  the  northwest,  and  the 
Semitic  branch  "eastward"  toward  the  ''land  of  Shinar" 
is  indisputable.  As  the  details  of  these  race  move- 
ments emerge  from  obscurity,  the  meager  account  in 
Genesis  x  is  not  discredited;  rather,  little  by  little,  it 
is  being  confirmed.  Not  all  of  the  subdivisions  of  the 
race  are  positively  identified  at  the  place  in  which  they 
appear  on  the  map  of  Biblical  geography,  but  of  many 
of  them  there  can  be  little  doubt  and  they  correspond 
to  the  lines  of  emigration  laid  down  in  Genesis  x. 

III.    THE    RISE    OF    CIVILIZATIONS 

The  rise  of  civilizations  is  yet  involved  in  almost  as 
much  obscurity  as  the  dispersion  of  men  over  the 
earth.  The  time  was,  when,  aside  from  the  Bible, 
Herodotus  set  the  bounds  of  our  historical  knowledge 
on  this  subject.  Then,  little  by  little,  research  among 
the  ruins  of  ancient  civilization  gave  glimmerings  of 
light  along  the  course  which  Herodotus  followed  and 
even  beyond  the  bounds  to  which  he  reached.  Some 
years  ago.  Professor  Maspero  showed  the  farthest  reach 
of  archaeological  research  in  his  Dawn  of  Civilization, 
a  learned  and  ambitious  work  which  thought  to  speak 
the  last  word.  It  was  scarcely  given  to  the  world 
before  it  was  put  out  of  date  by  fresh  discoveries.  And 
the  laudable  ambition  of  that  distinguished  scholar  has 
drifted  away  far  beyond  his  reach  or  the  reach  of  any 


196  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

other  in  the  present  generation.  Yet,  notwithstanding 
this,  the  Bible  account  stands  for  all  scholars  on  the 
horizon.  It  tells  of  the  beginnings  of  civilization  with- 
out dates.  The  facts  it  gives  are  being  glimpsed  by 
research.  The  outlines  of  the  picture  are  coming  out 
of  the  darkness  as  the  image  on  the  photographic  plate 
comes  out  under  the  hand  of  the  operator  in  the  dark 
room.  As  these  outlines  appear,  they  are  the  outlines 
sketched  in  the  Bible  account  of  the  rise  of  civilizations. 
Beyond  that  statement  we  cannot  go  as  yet. 

The  Bible  gives  us  the  beginnings  of  the  mingling 
of  Hamitic  and  Semitic  civilizations,  the  great  civili- 
zations of  the  Old  World.  The  descendants  of  Japheth, 
that  part  of  the  human  family  which  stands  for  the 
acme  of  civilization  today,  scarce  come  into  notice  at 
all  for  that  age  of  the  world  either  in  the  Bible  or  out 
of  it. 

The  first  Babylonian  civilization,  according  to  the 
Bible,  was  Hamitic,  by  a  son  of  Cush.^  According  to 
archaeological  research^  it  was  Sumerian,  or  Accadian, 
but  who  the  Sumerians  or  Accadians  were  archaeology 
answers  not,  except  that  they  were  not  Semitic  people; 
they  had  not  a  Semitic  language,  and  their  faces  are 
not  at  all  those  of  Semites.*  The  heroic  element  in 
the  Bible  story  of  ''Nimrod  the  mighty  hunter,"  may 
not  properly  be  pressed  for  either  mythological  elements 
or  evidence  of  rude  and  barbarous  conditions,  lest  we 
may  be  somewhat  embarrassed  when  there  comes  to 
mind  the  hunting  expeditions  of  Rameses  II  at  the 
highest  pinnacle  of  Egyptian  civilization,  or  still  more 
embarrassed  even  to  the  verge  of  the  ludicrous  when 
we  consider  the  sportsmanship  of  European  monarchs 
of  the  present  time,  or  turn  to  one  of  the  late  books  from 


RISE    OF   CIVILIZATIONS  197 

the  American  press  recounting  the  exploits  of  a  '^ mighty 
hunter"  who  ruled  the  great  American  Republic  in 
the  beginning  of  the  xxth  century  a.d. 

The  relation  between  the  civilization  of  Babylonia  and 
that  of  Egypt  is  much  discussed  by  archaeologists,  which 
means,  of  course,  that  each  civilization  has  its  advocates. 
The  salient  facts  are  these:  that  the  early  Horns  wor- 
shipers in  Egypt  were  invaders  who  came  from  the  south, 
or  southeast,  from  the  direction  of  the  land  of  Cush,  and 
that  the  early  Babylonian  civilization  was  Sumerian, 
not  Semitic,  which  the  Bible  says  was  also  Cushite. 
These  facts,  exactly  in  accord  with  the  Biblical  record,  ac- 
count for  the  similarities  between  the  civilization  of  the 
two  lands  of  the  east  river  and  of  the  west,  and  that  with- 
out making  either  civilization  dependent  upon  the  other. 
The  priority  of  the  Babylonian  civilization,  is  however, 
quite  generally  conceded.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Bible  account  of  the  rise  of  civilizations  to  indicate 
that  they  are  given  in  any  regular  order,  much  less 
to  make  certain  that  the  order  of  time  is  always  the 
order  followed,  or  whether  some  other  determining 
factor  may  not  be  recognized  in  the  order  adopted. 
It  may  be  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  relation  to  the 
course  of  the  history  of  redemption  determines  both 
order  and  perspective.  It  is  most  interesting,  however, 
to  note  that  the  order  of  the  earliest  civilizations  is 
thus  exactly  the  order  in  which  they  are  mentioned 
in  the  Bible  account. 

Out  of  Babylonia  "went  forth  Asshur  and  builded 
Ninevah."  It  is  a  most  remarkable  thing  that  out  of 
an  Hamitic  civilizition  in  Babylonia,  Semitic  territory, 
there  went  Semites  to  found  a  Semitic  civilization  in 
Assyria.     Yet  this  seemingly  absurd  representation  of 


198  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

history  in  the  Bible  fits  well  into  what  is  known  by 
research  of  the  rise  of  civilizations  in  that  part  of  the 
world.  Civilization  in  Babylonia,  which  appears  as 
Semitic  territory,  first  emerged  under  the  leadership 
of  Nimrod  ''the  mighty  hunter"  from  Hamitic  Cush. 
Semites  journeyed  "eastward," — how  long  after  the 
Flood  we  are  not  told, — and  "found  a  plain  in  the  land 
of  Shinar."  That  eventually  there  might  be  disagree- 
ment between  these  Semites  and  a  Hamitic  civilization 
and  that  a  Semitic  leader  should  go  out  with  a  Semitic 
emigration  and  found  Nineveh  is  quite  human  and 
to  be  expected. 

Of  the  beginnings  of  Egyptian  occupation,  nothing 
is  known  and  of  the  beginnings  of  Egyptian  civilization, 
very  little.  It  is  generally  accepted  that  the  aborigines 
were  Hamitic,  as  represented  in  the  Bible,  but  so  far 
as  archaeological  evidence  goes  it  is  little  more  than 
an  assumption.  The  rise  of  civiUzation,  if  such  an 
epoch  may  be  said  to  be  marked  by  Egyptian  research, 
seems  to  have  been,  as  has  been  said,  at  the  invasion 
of  the  Horus  worshipers^  out  of  the  south,  from  the 
region  of  the  Cushites.  Thus,  in  the  beginning,  Egypt- 
ian civilization  was  imposed  by  one  branch  of  the 
Hamitic  family  upon  another.  This  little  that  is  known 
is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  account  of  early  Egyptian 
history  in  the  Bible. 

Canaanite  civilization  is  the  strangest  mixture  of  all, 
whether  we  consider  the  Bible  account  or  the  findings 
of  research.  Hebrew  is,  according  to  the  Bible  repre- 
sentation, the  "language  of  Canaan. "^  And  as  far 
back  as  it  has  been  as  yet  possible  to  learn  anything 
in  that  land  by  archaeological  research  it  is  still  found 


RISE  OF  CIVILIZATIONS  199 

to  be  so.  But  Canaan  was  of  the  sons  of  Ham,  and 
the  researches  which  have  revealed  the  troglodyte  in- 
habitants^ as  the  earliest  in  Palestine  seem  pretty  clearly 
to  indicate  that  they  were  not  Semitic  people.^  The 
indications  are  for  a  Semitic  language  and  civilization 
among  what  was  originally  a  Hamitic  population;  not 
more  anomalous  than  a  Cushite  civilization  in  Baby- 
lonia out  of  which  went  Semitic  people  to  found  Semitic 
civilization  in  Assyria.  The  probability  is,  however, 
that  eventually  Hamitic  civilization  will  be  found  to 
have  preceded  the  dominance  of  the  Semitic  tongue 
in  Canaan. 

The  Arabian  civilization  in  that  mysterious  "East," 
''the  Khedem"  of  Job,^  of  Balaam,*  of  the  Wise  Men," 
and  of  the  traditions  of  Egypt,  is  still  left  by  research 
in  as  great  mystery  as  surrounds  it  in  the  Bible,  with 
this  important  exception,  that  its  existence  at  a  very 
early  period  as  represented  in  the  Bible  is  confirmed  by 
the  Egyptian  record  of  the  travels  of  Sinuhit.^ 

European  civilization  is  entirely  omitted  from  the 
Bible  account  of  early  history.  Did  the  brief  outline 
of  ethnographic  and  ethnologic  beginnings  in  Genesis 
X  antedate  the  inception  of  European  progress?  or  was 
nothing  known  or  revealed  to  the  Biblical  writers  con- 
cerning it,  or,  more  probably,  is  nothing  said  in  the 
Bible  concerning  European  progress  because  European 
civilization  lay  outside  the  scope  of  the  history  of 
redemption  at  that  period? 

Thus  the  results  of  archaeological  research  accord 
with  the  Scripture  representations  concerning  the  rise 
of  civilizations  as  to  order,  importance,  and  relationships. 
That  the  strange  commingling  and  yet  distinction  of 


200  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Semitic  and  Hamitic  civilization  and  influences  in  Baby- 
Ionia  and  Canaan  should  be  substantiated  by  the  meager 
results  of  research  to  such  a  remarkable  degree  is  very 
significant  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Biblical  account. 
This  is  not  to  be  expected  of  legend  or  myth.  Could 
it  by  any  possibility  occur? 


CHAPTER  XV 

The  Beginnings  of  History — Continued 

iv.  the  source  and  course  of  semitic  culture 

We  proceed  now  to  the  more  particular  examination 
of  history  in  detail.  Whatever  may  be  the  original 
source  and  course  of  Semitic  culture,  whether  arising 
in  Babylonia  and  passing  westward,  as  long  universally 
held,  or  rising  in  the  westland  and  going  eastward, 
as  now  plausibly  urged  by  some,^  in  any  case,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  history  of  revealed  religion,  as 
it  took  its  rise  from  Abraham,  Babylonia  was  dominant 
in  Palestine.  The  representation  of  this  in  Genesis 
xiv  has  been  called  the  "storm  center"  of  Biblical 
criticism  of  the  early  historical  period,  because  the 
historicity  of  the  story  of  Babylonian  interference  and 
Babylonian  domination  recorded  in  that  chapter  has 
been  so  steadily  scouted  by  many  important  critics. 

V.    BABYLONIAN  INFLUENCE  IN   CANAAN 

But  this  Babylonian  domination  in  Palestine,  not 
only  then  but  before  and  after  that  time,  has  been  so 
abundantly  and  absolutely  attested^  that  it  can  hardly 
any  longer  be  the  subject  of  serious  discussion.  The 
importance  of  the  Bible  narrative  of  domination  given 
in  Genesis  xiv  arises  almost  wholly  out  of  the  fact  that 
it  is  the  only  insight  into  that  domination  which  the 
Bible  gives  for  that  period  and  not  from  any  special 

201 


202  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

importance,  for  general  history,  of  the  events  men- 
tioned in  it.  The  incidents  there  recorded  were  of 
comparatively  small  importance  in  the  affairs  of  a  great 
empire;  though,  considered  in  itself,  the  campaign  was 
brilliant  and  successful,  but  very  brief. 

It  must  be  carefully  noted  that  the  narrative  at  this 
point  in  the  Bible  is  the  narrative  of  the  capture  of 
Lot  and  his  rescue  by  Abraham.  General  history  is 
only  parenthetically  introduced  in  verses  4  to  9  to 
explain  the  situation.  But  it  is  the  general  history, 
and  the  place  in  it  into  which  the  special  narrative  fits, 
with  which  criticism  has  been  so  much  concerned,  and 
which  archaeological  research  has  served  to  illustrate. 

The  beginnings  of  Babylonian  domination  in  Pales- 
tine are  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Sargon  I,i  whose 
generally  accepted  date  has  been  about  3800  B.C., 
though  some  would  now  put  it  much  later  than  that. 
The  domination  appears  again  in  the  time  of  Gudea, 
who  brought  limestone  "from  the  land  of  the  Amorite." 
Of  the  confederacy  of  Elamite  and  Babylonian  kings 
not  much  is  clearly  and  definitely  known,  but  a  close 
relation  betwen  the  two  lands,  with  now  one  and  now 
the  other  in  the  ascendency,  is  well  known.  At  the 
time  of  Abraham  ''the  land  of  the  Amorite"  was  re- 
garded as  an  integral  part  of  the  Babylonian  empire. ^ 
Not  all  the  allies  in  this  campaign  to  Palestine  are 
known  certainly  as  yet.  Amraphel  is  usually  identified 
with  Hammurabi,^  though  there  are  a  few  important 
scholars  who  dissent."*  It  must  be  admitted,  however, 
in  spite  of  these  voices  of  dissent,  that  the  general  view 
of  the  great  Elamite  lawgiver  is  that  he  is  the  Amraphel 
of  the  expedition  that  captured  Lot.  Few  kings  of  the 
ancient  world  are  better  known  than  he,  for,  in  addition 


BABYLONIAN     INFLUENCE     IN     CANAAN  203 

to  the  famous  Code  that  bears  his  name,  about  ninety 
of  his  letters  and  other  brief  documents  have  been 
found  and  translated.^ 

Chedorlaomer  as  an  individual  king  of  Elam  is  not 
identified,  but  the  elements  which  compose  his  name 
are  quite  familiar  in  royal  names  of  that  period.^ 
Tidal,  ''king  of  Goiim,"  is  probably  correctly  identi- 
fied with  "Tudkhulu."3  Of  Arioch  nothing  is  certainly 
known  under  this  form  of  his  name,  but  there  is  very 
strong  evidence,  which  has  convinced  many  cuneiform 
scholars  from  the  days  of  Rawlinson  and  George  Smith 
onward,  that  Rim-Sin  is  a  Semitic  equivalent  of  the 
Elamitic  name  Arioch.^ 

The  geographic  notes  of  the  campaign  recorded  in 
Genesis  xiv  show  that  it  took  a  wide  sweep  from  Damas- 
cus, on  the  north,  far  down  to  the  wilderness  of  Paran, 
on  the  south,  then  back  west  of  the  Jordan  to  the  cities 
of  the  Plain,  crushing  the  rebellion  everywhere  and 
carrying  off  plunder,  doubtless,  from  every  place.  The 
Bible  has  no  room  for  any  account  of  the  general 
despoiUng  of  the  land,  but  only  of  the  plundering  of 
the  cities  of  the  Plain  and  the  capture  of  Lot. 

The  great  army  was  well  started  on  its  return  journey, 
the  rebellion  crushed,  the  campaign  finished,  the  edge 
of  the  rebellious  territory  reached,  when  Abraham  with 
a  few  men  came  up  in  his  pursuit,  hung  on  the  rear  of 
the  army,  made  a  night  attack  upon  the  guard  of  the 
baggage  train  and  the  prisoners,  raided  a  portion  of 
the  train,  recovered  Lot  and  his  personal  belongings 
among  other  spoil,  and  made  off  in  the  darkness.  The 
importance  given  to  this  narrative  in  the  Bible  is 
because  of  its  importance  in  the  Bible  story;  the  little 
that  is  given  of  the  general  history  here  is  simply  as 


204  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

a  setting  for  that  story.  On  the  other  hand,  the  insig- 
nificance of  the  rescue  as  an  affair  in  the  campaign  of 
the  allied  kings  from  the  East  is  apparent  at  once  upon 
consideration  of  the  whole  campaign.  The  imperial 
authority  has  been  reestablished  in  all  that  vast  region 
in  the  "land  of  the  Amorite,"  including  the  cities  of 
the  Plain.  The  long  march  homeward  having  been 
begun,  they,  a  great  army,  would  not  run  back  for  a 
night  foray  like  this  or  for  the  escape  of  a  few  prisoners 
and  the  loss  of  a  little  plunder.  A  few  ''petty  sheiks 
of  the  desert,"  as  these  allied  kings  have  once  been 
called,  might  have  given  heed  to  such  an  attack,  not 
so  the  imperial  armies  during  the  conduct  of  a  great 
campaign. 

The  general  historicity  of  the  fourteenth  chapter  of 
Genesis,  involving  as  it  does  the  greater  subject  of  the 
dominance  of  Babylonian  or  Elamitic  influence  in 
Palestine  in  the  early  patriarchal  age,  can  no  longer 
reasonably  be  questioned.  The  attempted  recrudes- 
escence  of  the  destructive  theory  at  this  point  by  Dr. 
Driver^  in  the  Seventh  Edition  of  his  Genesis,  if  one 
may  yield  to  the  temptation  to  be  facetious  on  such  a 
subject,  puts  us  in  mind,  amusingly  of  the  sometime 
attempt  of  strawberry  plants  to  blossom  in  the  autumn. 

How  much  did  Babylonian  domination  mean  for 
Palestinian  civilization?  How  much  does  foreign  domi- 
nation mean  to  the  manners,  customs,  laws,  institu- 
tions, and  culture  of  any  land?  We  may  as  safely 
theorize  upon  the  one  question  as  upon  the  other. 
Speculation  on  this  subject  is  well-nigh  hopeless.  It  is 
speculation  at  this  point  which  has  brought  criticism 
into  so  much  difficulty  in  the  understanding  of  the 
Biblical  record  of  these  times.     The  effect  of  foreign 


BABYLONIAN  INFLUENCE  IN  CANAAN  205 

domination  at  any  time,  in  any  place,  and  among  any 
people,  can  be  determined  only  by  actual  observation 
of  the  facts.  Little,  if  anything,  may  be  assumed. 
The  possibilities  are  so  numerous  and  varied  that  alter- 
native suppositions  become  so  complex  and  confusing 
as  to  be  impracticable  as  will  appear.  Sometimes  for- 
eign domination  is  content  with  making  the  native 
ruler  a  vassal  with  mere  tokens  of  vassalage ;  sometimes 
a  new  king  is  appointed  from  the  people,  and  the  internal 
government  of  the  land  is  allowed  to  remain  practi- 
cally unchanged,  and  the  manners  and  customs  wholly 
so;  sometimes  there  is  a  foreign  ruler  put  on  the  throne, 
accompanied  by  a  partial  or,  it  may  be,  complete 
change  of  institutions,  laws,  and  customs;  sometimes 
the  old  native  language  is  used  by  the  new  government 
without  disturbance,  and  sometimes  a  new  official 
court  language  is  introduced,  and,  when  that  is  done, 
sometimes  it  takes  hold  upon  the  people  and  displaces 
temporarily  or  even  permanently  the  native  tongue, 
and  sometimes  the  two  coalesce  and  both  lose,  in  that 
land,  their  identity  in  the  composite  language.  Since 
such  varied  experiences  are  observed  in  the  history 
of  the  world,  it  becomes  imperative  that  criticism  should 
wait  upon  observation  for  the  reconstructing  of  the 
historical  setting  of  the  patriarchal  age  in  Palestine. 
How  much,  then,  did  Babylonian  suzerainty  in  Pales- 
tine in  patriarchal  days  affect  manners,  customs,  laws, 
institutions,  culture,  and  refinement? 

The  patriarchs  and  their  followers  were  not  wild, 
roving  bands,  but  semi-nomads.  It  has  been  most 
convenient  in  the  evolutionary  history  to  suppose  a 
nomadic  life  for  the  patriarchsj.  But  archaeological 
information,  harmonizing  entirely  with  the  very  plain 


206  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

representations  of  Scripture,  gives  a  civilization  for 
that  age  consistent  only  with  the  semi-nomadic  life 
made  known  to  us  in  the  Biblical  account  of  the  patri- 
archs ;  a  state  of  civilization  quite  similar  to  that  found 
in  the  grazing  sections  of  America  and  Australia  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ago,  though,  of  course,  in  Palestine 
on  a  much  smaller  scale.  There  were  cities  and  a 
well-established  government  all  over  the  land,  with  yet 
much  freedom  of  movement  in  the  grazing  districts, 
and  much  simplicity  of  manners  in  all  country  life. 
There  were  local  vassal  kings,  some  of  whom,  as  those 
of  the  cities  of  the  Plain,  attempted  to  throw  off  the 
yoke.^  The  payment  of  tithes  which  is  illustrated  by 
Abraham  giving  tithes  to  Melchizedek  was  a  regular 
Babylonian  custom  of  which  Babylonian  tablets^  furnish 
abundant  illustration. 

Then,  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,'  promulgated  far 
away  in  the  imperial  capital  of  the  East,  when  held  up 
as  a  mirror  to  the  conduct  of  men  in  Palestine  in  patri- 
archal times  as  recorded  in  the  Bible,  is  seen  to  be 
equally  in  force  in  the  far  western  province  of  the 
empire,  the  "land  of  the  Amorite."  So  that  Palestine 
in  that  age,  so  far  from  being  a  semi-barbarous  land, 
was  under  one  of  the  simplest  and  most  orderly  and 
symmetrical  codes'*  of  civil  and  criminal  laws  ever  in 
force  in  any  land. 

The  law  of  adoption  is  illustrated  in  the  home  life 
and  the  hopes  of  Abraham.  He  says:  ''And,  lo,  one 
born  in  my  house  is  mine  heir."  In  the  Code  (law 
191)  we  read:  ''If  a  mauj  after  a  young  child  whom  he 
has  taken  to  his  sonship  and  brought  up,  has  made  a 
house  for  himself  and  acquired  children,  and  has  set 
his  face  to  cut  off  the  nursling,  that  child  shall  not  go 


BABYLONIAN  INFLUENCE  IN  CANAAN  207 

his  way,  the  father  that  brought  him  up  shall  give  to 
him  from  his  goods  one-third  of  this  sonship,  he  shall 
go  off;  from  field  garden  and  house  he  shall  not  give 
him."  How  many  had  been  born  in  Abraham's  house 
we  know  not.  Thus  far  they  were  his  only  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  law.     This  was  his  complaint. 

The  conduct  of  Sarah  in  giving  her  maid  to  her 
husband  and  the  treatment  of  Hagar  for  sneering  at 
her  childless  mistress  were  all  according  to  the  law. 
The  Code  (law  146)  says:  ''If  a  man  has  espoused  a 
votary,  and  she  has  given  a  maid  to  her  husband  and 
she  has  borne  children,  afterwards  that  maid  has  made 
herself  equal  with  her  mistress,  because  she  has  borne 
children  her  mistress  shall  not  sell  her  for  money,  she 
shall  put  a  mark  upon  her  and  count  her  among  the 
maidservants." 

The  marriage  dower  and  some  of  the  customs  con- 
nected with  it  appear  in  the  account  of  the  betrothal 
of  Rebecca.  The  Code  (law  160)  prescribes  that  "if 
a  man  has  brought  in  a  present  to  the  house  of  his 
father-in-law,  has  given  a  dower,  and  the  father  of 
the  daughter  has  said,  'My  daughter  I  will  not  give 
thee,'  he  shall  make  up  and  return  everything  that  he 
brought  him."  There  are  several  laws  relating  to  the 
dower  under  various  circumstances. 

The  threat  of  burning  made  by  Judah  against  his 
daughter-in-law  Tamar  has  also,  probably,  its  justifi- 
cation in  the  Code  (law  110)  where  there  seem  to  be 
some  euphemistic  terms.  "li  a  votary,  a  lady  who  is 
not  living  in  a  convent,  has  opened  a  wine  shop  or  has 
entered  a  wine  shop  for  drink,  that  woman  one  shall 
burn." 


208  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  laws  of  contract,  also,  make  us  to  know  more 
exactly  of  the  process  at  the  gate  of  Hebron  between 
Abraham  and  the  ''sons  of  Heth."  In  the  laws  of 
contract  in  the  Code,  among  others  we  have  (law  7) : 
''If  a  man  has  bought  silver,  gold,  manservant  or 
maidservant,  ox  or  sheep  or  ass  or  anything  whatever 
its  name,  from  the  hand  of  a  man's  son,  or  of  a  man's 
slave,  without  witness  and  bonds,  that  man  has  acted 
the  thief,  he  shall  be  put  to  death,"  This  law  refers 
specifically  to  dealings  with  minors  and  slaves,  but  it 
shows  the  customs  of  formal  contract  among  the  people 
with  "witness  and  bonds." 

These  numerous  harmonies,  so  widely  extended,  and 
as  varied  in  character  as  contracts,  inheritances,  and 
criminal  executions,  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that 
the  otherwise  seemingly  capricious  conduct  of  the  patri- 
archs was  in  strict  conformity,  in  each  individual  case, 
with  statutory  law.  Such  regularity  of  law-abiding 
conduct  can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposition  of  a 
well-established  government  and  a  law-abiding  people, 
a  reign  of  law,  in  fact,  equal  to  that  found  in  some  of 
the  most  highly  civilized  lands  of  today. 

Thus  the  only  objection  in  fact,  aside  from  the  objec- 
tions arising  from  the  demands  of  the  evolutionary 
theory  of  patriarchal  history,  which  could  be  made  to 
the  historical  character  of  the  patriarchal  narrative 
{i.e.,  the  starthng  and  seemingly  inexplicable  acts  in 
the  conduct  of  the  patriarchs  and  others  associated 
with  their  history),  not  only  is  fully  met  but  is  met  in 
such  a  way  by  exact,  incidental,  agreement  between 
isolated  acts  of  conduct  and  particular  laws  in  a  Code 
promulgated  at  the  Imperial  seat  of  government  one 


BABYLONIAN  INFLUENCE   IN  CANAAN  209 

thousand  miles  away,  as  gives  to  the  history  the  same 
convincing  appearance  of  reahty  that  is  given  to  the 
record  of  the  conformity,  in  early  Colonial  days,  of 
the  acts  of  the  settlers  to  the  quaint  laws  of  New 
England,  or  of  the  ways  of  the  English  people  in  the 
XVI th  century  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  old  England 
then  in  force. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

The  Patriarchal  Period 
i.  the  palestinian  civilization  in  the  patriarchal 

AGE 

If  we  turn  from  this  contemplation  of  settled  insti- 
tutions and  law-abiding  people  to  inquire  to  what  extent 
Babylonian  refinement  and  culture  had  influenced  Pales- 
tine and  more  exactly  to  what  height  the  people  of 
Palestine,  under  such  influence,  had  then  attained  (for 
even  an  indigenous  culture  may  be  much  affected  by 
outside  influences)  we  will  find,  if  possible,  a  still  more 
surprising  state  of  society. 

A  correct  estimate  of  a  particular  age,  as  the  Abra- 
hamic  age  now  under  consideration,  cannot  be  had 
without  bringing  into  view  a  much  longer  period.  It 
is  very  seldom  that  anywhere  in  the  world  the  refine- 
ment and  culture  of  a  given  century  can  be  blocked 
off  by  itself  for  consideration  independent  of  what 
precedes  and  also  of  what  follows,  for  the  real  character 
of  a  culture  can  be  fully  known  only  by  its  fruits,  which 
are  sometimes  very  slow  to  ripen. 

As  far  back  as  the  time  of  Naram-Sin^  (about  3750 
B.C.),  the  Babylonian  postal  system  had  been  estab- 
lished which  reached  as  far  as  Palestine.  Such  a  public 
convenience  always  meets  a  need  of  the  people.  The 
need  for  a  postal  system  among  people  cannot  arise 
except  from  a  considerable  diffusion  of  the  knowledge 

210 


PALESTINIAN  CIVILIZATION  211 

of  letters,  both  how  to  read  and  how  to  write.  Indeed, 
such  a  public  convenience  as  a  postal  system  by  no 
means  comes  as  a  certainty  even  in  a  high  state  of 
civihzation  and  where  there  is  a  wide  diffusion  of 
learning,  but  has  usually  marked  only  the  greatest 
enlightenment. 

Not  much  has  yet  been  learned  of  the  ceramic  art 
of  the  earhest  times  in  Palestine.  But  from  all  exca- 
vations in  the  land  have  come  good  specimens  and 
from  the  earliest  time,  as  shown  at  Taanach^  and  Gezer,^ 
there  are  bowls,  vases,  and  dishes  of  beautiful  shapes 
and  excellent  workmanship.  The  best  view  of  articles 
of  art  and  luxurious  refinement  in  the  patriarchal  age 
is  to  be  obtained  from  an  examination  of  the  list  of 
booty  gathered  from  Canaan  by  Thothmes  III^  during 
the  Israehte  sojourn  in  Egypt.  It  makes  the  picture 
of  Canaanite  luxury,  which  the  Bible  paints  with  a 
few  touches,  seem  very  moderate,  indeed,  common- 
place. There  are  inlaid  and  gilded  chairs  and  tables 
and  a  golden  plow  and  scepter,  richly  embroidered 
clothes,  a  chariot  chased  with  silver,  jeweled  tent-poles, 
gold-plated  chariots,  iron  armor  inlaid  with  gold,  a 
helmet  of  gold  inlaid  with  lapis-lazuli.  Such  a  collec- 
tion of  Oriental  articles  of  luxurious  refinement  could 
not  be  duphcated  and  scarcely  approached  in  richness 
by  robbing  all  the  Museums  of  the  world  today.  Yet 
these  things  came  out  of  patriarchal  Palestine. 

Then  the  fact  of  the  Tell  Amarna  tablets,''  without 
considering  the  contents  of  the  tablets  at  all,  has  a 
significance  for  the  culture  of  Palestine  in  that  and 
the  preceding  age,  which  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 
At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  these  tablets,  Babylonian 
poUtical  dominance  was  at  an  end  in  Palestine.     It 


212  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

had  been  supplanted  by  Egyptian  control  and  this 
now  was  slipping  away,  apparently,  before  some  sort 
of  patriotic  spirit  of  ''Canaan  for  the  Canaanites." 
Yet  so  great  had  been  the  influence  of  Babylonian 
culture,  so  great  the  advancement  which  the  people 
of  Palestine  had  made  in  refinement  under  it,  that  we 
find  many,  we  might  almost  say  all,  sorts  of  people 
still  writing  letters  in  that  most  difficult  of  all  scripts, 
the  cuneiform,  which  requires  schools  and  years  of 
patient  toil  for  its  acquisition.  This  state  of  things 
had  continued  for  a  long  time  notwithstanding  that 
Egypt,  the  then  dominant  political  power  in  the  land, 
had  a  hieroglyphic  system  much  easier  to  learn.  Since 
the  Babylonian  culture  of  this  time  could  not  have 
arisen  in  the  land  after  the  Babylonian  political  domi- 
nance was  so  thoroughly  displaced  by  the  hostile  Egyp- 
tian power,  this  can  only  mean  that  the  Babylonian 
literary  culture  in  Palestine  was  so  high  and  so  thor- 
oughly established  that  it  had  continued  from  the 
Babylonian  period  down  far  into  the  time  of  the  Egyp- 
tian suzerainty  and  was  still  so  dominant  that  even 
the  Egyptian  court  felt  constrained  to  use  the  Baby- 
lonian language  and  script  in  its  correspondence  with 
its  Palestinian  provinces.  From  these  facts,  we  may 
learn,  how  indelibly  the  literary  culture  of  Babylonia 
had  been  impressed  upon  Palestine  in  the  preceding 
age,  the  time  of  Abraham,  to  have  endured  through 
such  seemingly  irresistible  adverse  influences. 

II.    THE  FIRST  PILGRIM  FATHER 

Into  such  a  Palestine,  of  such  civilization,  such  refine- 
ments, such  literary  attainments,  Abraham,  the  first 


THE  FIRST  PILGRIM  FATHER  213 

pilgrim  father,  immigrated.  There  was  a  divine  call 
at  a  favorable  opportunity.  Was  there  ever  a  divine 
call  to  any  one  at  other  than  a  favorable  opportunity? 
God's  grace  works  through  both  providence  and  reve- 
lation, and  all  things  of  His  grace,  whether  through 
providence  or  through  revelation,  are  in  the  "fullness 
of  time."  The  introduction  and  estabhshment  in  Pales- 
tine of  not  only  the  Babylonian  tongue  but  the  difficult 
Babylonian  script,  and  such  general  diffusion  of  the 
knowledge  of  that  language  and  script  that  it  came  to 
be  used  by  all  classes  of  people,  evidences  beyond 
question  a  large  movement  of  populations  from  Baby- 
lonia to  Palestine.  Whether  it  began  by  military 
occupation  or  by  voluntary  emigration  is  not  known 
nor  is  it  of  vital  importance  that  it  should  be  known. 
However  the  movement  may  have  begun,  no  such 
introduction  of  the  language  and  script  of  Babylonia 
could  be  brought  about  without  the  continued  presence 
of  considerable  numbers  of  Babylonians  in  the  "land 
of  the  Amorite." 

Abraham  was  called  to  join  this  movement  of  popu- 
lations, not  simply  as  a  man  of  affairs  seeking  to  better 
his  worldly  condition,  but  as  one  called  to  a  great 
mission.  He  was  called  to  be  the  first  pilgrim  father, 
to  take  advantage  of  the  movement  from  the  scenes 
of  Babylonia  and  its  idolatrous  religion  to  the  frontier 
of  the  empire,  there  to  lay  the  foundations  of  a  theo- 
ocracy.  He  went  out,  as  does  every  other  emigrant, 
to  a  strange  land  and  a  new  life,  i.e.,  "not  knowing 
whither  he  went." 

Not  for  long  do  we  follow  the  journeyings  of  Abraham 
before  a  new  light  begins  to  break  upon  us  concerning 
his  career.     He  soon  appears  not  as  a  mere  individual, 


214  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

but  as  a  Prince,  the  head  of  a  clan,  for  his  father  had 
died  in  Haran.  These  clans  of  the  East  are  anomalous 
in  government,  but  existent  in  fact,  whether  called 
Arabs,  as  in  the  Bible  history,  or  Shashu  by  the  Egyp- 
tians, or  Bedouin,  as  in  modern  times.  That  such 
princes  of  clans  should  exist  in  orderly,  well-established 
government  is  very  perplexing  according  to  our  modern 
ideas,  but  no  more  perplexing  in  the  Babylonian  govern- 
ment in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Abraham  than  in 
Turkish  rule  in  the  same  region  today.  A  little  later 
this  princely  character  of  Abraham  appears  very  clearly 
in  the  independent  way  in  which  he  proceeds  to  the 
division  of  the  land  between  Lot  and  himself  as  though 
there  were  no  others  in  the  land  to  be  consulted,  and 
again  in  the  pursuit  of  the  captives  and  the  plunder 
from  the  Cities  of  the  Plain  with  a  company  of  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  men  and  some  friends,  acting 
throughout  entirely  upon  his  own  authority.  This 
princely  character  of  Abraham  is  the  key  to  much  in 
his  career  and  the  overlooking  of  it  has  been  the  oppor- 
tunity for  the  introduction  of  much  confusion  into  the 
interpretation  of  his  career. 

III.  THE  PATRIARCHAL  RECEPTION  IN  EGYPT 

Very  early  in  the  sojourn  of  Abraham  in  the  land  of 
promise  an  incident  occurred  which  turns  our  eyes  to 
an  entirely  new  quarter  of  the  horizon  of  Palestinian 
history  in  the  Bible.  We  have  heretofore  seen  the 
light  shining  in  only  from  the  east.  Now,  for  the 
first  time  in  Bible  story,  light  from  Egypt  falls  across 
the  page  of  Palestinian  history.  There  came  a  famine 
in  Canaan.     Two  significant  events  took  place  as  a 


THE  PATRIARCHAL  RECEPTION  IN  EGYPT  215 

result  of  this  famine.  Abraham  went  to  Egypt  for 
succor  and  there  he  was  shown  by  the  Egyptians  royal 
distinction.  Insignificant,  private,  citizens  are  not 
accorded  such  consideration.  There  is  here  an  impera- 
tive demand  for  either  a  belief  in  a  suitable  historical 
setting  for  these  events  or  a  frank  acknowledgment  of 
a  mythical  element  in  the  narrative.  The  historical 
setting  has  been  coming  to  light  slowly  for  many  years, 
yet  has  but  very  recently  reached  a  satisfactory  stage 
of  progress.  Brugsch^  long  ago  discovered  conclusive 
evidence  of  a  Semitic  language  among  the  inhabitants 
of  the  region  about  Zoan.  Here  was  used  a  Semitic 
tongue  of  such  influence  that  many  of  its  words  per- 
sisted all  down  through  the  transformation  of  the  old 
Egyptian  language  into  the  Coptic  and  the  breaking 
up  of  the  Coptic  into  dialects  and  the  incorporation  of 
the  traditions  of  that  region  into  Arabic  literature. 
These  Semitic  people  seem  originally  to  have  been 
Phoenicians.  Phoenicia,  like  Portugal  and  Holland  and 
England  in  turn,  in  later  times,  was  mistress  of  the 
sea.  The  Egyptians  were  averse  to  much  intercourse 
with  foreigners,  so  that  by  some  arrangement,  probably 
one  which  was  the  growth  of  centuries,  the  Phoenicians 
came  to  do  the  foreign  business  of  the  Egyptians  much 
as  the  English,  the  French,  and  the  Germans  long  did 
the  foreign  business  of  the  Chinese. 

Then  there  came  a  time  when  the  desert  people, 
for  some  reason  now  unknown,  pushed  their  way  into 
the  Delta  of  Egypt.  Bedouin  Princes  lodged  there, 
abode  there,  and  at  last  usurped  the  power  and  the 
throne  of  Egypt  for  all  the  northern  kingdom,  and  put 
to  vassalage  the  princes  of  the  southern  kingdom. 
For  some  five  centuries  the  Hyksos,^  in  Egyptian,  ''Haq 


216  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Shashu,"  "Bedouin  Princes,"  held  the  scepter  at  Zoan. 
Their  entrance  into  Egypt  has  been  laid  bare  by  Petrie 
at  Tell  el-Yehudiyeh.^  They  were  in  power  when 
Abraham  went  down  into  Egypt  and  for  a  long  time 
afterward.  It  seems  to  be  assumed  also  in  Genesis^ 
that  there  was  some  knowledge  of  the  true  God  among 
these  Bedouin  Princes  on  the  throne  of  Egypt.  Al- 
though it  is  perfectly  clear  from  Egyptian  history  that 
they  took  up,  at  least  formally  and  officially  with  the 
religion  of  Egypt,  yet,  in  the  conversation  between  the 
patriarchs  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  Joseph,  and  the  Pha- 
raohs of  Egypt,  there  seems  to  be  a  constant  assumption 
on  the  part  of  the  patriarchs  that  the  Pharaohs  under- 
stood all  their  references  to  God  without  explanation 
and  the  Pharaoh  is  represented  as  replying,  especially 
to  Joseph,  in  a  way  that  imphes  such  understanding. 
Apparently  there  was  perfect  mutual  understanding, 
perhaps  sympathy. 

Why  should  not  Abraham,  a  Bedouin  Prince,  go 
down  into  Egypt  for  succor  and  be  treated  royally  there? 
Though  himself  an  inhabitant  of  a  Babylonian  province, 
he  had  many  affiUations  with  Egypt.  He  would  find 
a  Semitic  dialect  spoken  there  and  he  could  transact 
his  business  with  the  first  cousins  of  his  race,  the 
Phoenicians.  Bedouin  Princes  were  upon  the  throne; 
and  among  princes,  a  prince  is  a  prince  however  small 
his  principahty.  Perhaps  he  might  even  feel  in  Egypt 
a  touch  of  sympathy  in  his  religious  beliefs  and  aspi- 
rations. Thus  the  suitable  historical  setting  for  the 
strange  relations  of  the  patriarchs  with  the  Pharaohs 
of  Egypt  is  supplied  and  the  alternative  demand  for 
the  admission  of  a  mythical  element  in  the  stories 
passes  away. 


BEGINNINGS   OF   ISRAEL'S   INSTITUTIONS  217 

The  bold  rescue  of  Lot  and  his  stolen  goods  by  a 
night  attack  on  the  plunder  train  of  the  returning 
victorious  army  of  the  confederate  kings  is  only  such 
an  episode  as  frequently  occurs  in  the  lands  where 
dwell  the  Bedouin  Princes  of  the  East.  The  great 
machinery  of  a  campaign  of  the  Imperial  armies  could 
not  be  stopped  for  a  few  night-riders.  Even  some 
portions  of  America  have,  within  a  few  years  tolerated 
many  unredressed  forays  of  ''night-riders."  In  this  case 
also  very  httle  has  been  done  by  the  general  govern- 
ment to  overtake  the  mysterious  marauders. 

The  region  of  the  cities  of  the  Plain,  according  to 
expert  geological  testimoDy  of  the  present  time,^  is  a 
burned-out  oil  and  bitumen  territory.  There  is  the 
most  positive  evidence  of  just  such  a  catastrophe  at 
some  time  as  the  Bible  records  of  Abraham's  time, 
the  ignition  of  escaping  gases,  the  blowing-off  of  the 
crater,  the  carrying  aloft  of  the  broken  strata  of  salt 
and  sulphur  heated  by  the  flames  of  the  explosion,  and 
their  falling  back  upon  the  doomed  cities.  The  smoke 
of  such  a  combustion  would  ''go  up  as  the  smoke  of 
a  furnace." 

IV.    THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   REVELATION  AND   OF   ISRAEL's 
INSTITUTIONS 

Two  important  steps  in  the  progress  of  revelation 
at  this  period  find  archaeological  illustration.  We  have 
absolutely  nothing  concerning  the  introduction  of  cir- 
cumcision into  Israel  as  a  religious  rite  except  what  is 
in  the  Bible.  But  that  it  became,  among  the  Israel- 
ites, a  rehgious  rite  must  be  accounted  for.  Among 
other  peoples  circumcision  existed,  but  not  as  a  religious 


218  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

rite.  Especially  is  it  known  to  have  been  practiced 
among  the  Egyptians.  But  the  pictured  representa- 
tations  there  give  no  indication  that  it  was  anything 
but  a  surgical  operation.^  Herodotus  says  it  was  used 
by  the  Egyptians  for  sanitary  reasons.^  Only  among 
the  Isrealites  did  it  become  a  sacrament.  There  is 
nothing  improbable  whatever  in  the  narrative  that 
places  the  beginning  of  this  national  sacrament  in  the 
days  of  the  father  of  the  faithful. 

Much  more  light  is  now  shed  upon  the  question  of 
human  sacrifice  in  Palestine.  The  gruesome  hints  in 
the  Bible  of  such  Canaanite  practices  long  continuing 
even  after  the  incoming  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  yield- 
ing, in  some  measure,  of  the  Israelites  to  the  seduction 
of  the  doctrine  that  God  could  thus  be  appeased  by 
the  "first  fruits"  of  the  body,  are  frightfully  corrobo- 
rated and  illustrated  by  recent  research  in  Palestine, 
especially  that  of  Macalister  at  Gezer.  The  evidence 
there  of  the  sacrifice  of  newborn  children,  probably 
the  first-born,  while  belittled  by  some,  will  seem  to 
most  people  satisfying  and  conclusive. 

Realizing  that  Abraham  lived  in  a  land  where  was 
the  constant  pressure  of  example  and  the  urgency  of 
Canaanite  neighbors  that  the  first-born  belonged  to 
God"  and  must  be  sacrificed  to  God,  the  dramatic 
revelation  embodied  in  the  scene  on  Mount  Moriah 
is  to  us  the  one  clear,  bright  hght  in  that  night  of 
supersition  and  horrid  cruelty.  In  one  act  and  by  one 
word  God  imperatively  called  for  the  absolute  surrender 
of  the  best,  the  ''first-born,"  and  at  the  same  time 
sternly  rebuked  the  notion  that  to  slay  it  was  such 
service. 


ISAAC  219 

Let  no  critic  ask,  Is  such  superstition  as  assailed 
Abraham  compatible  with  such  piety  as  is  attributed 
to  Abraham?  at  least  not  until  the  world  has  forgotten 
Salem  witchcraft.  Let  no  one  say  that  such  immorahty 
as  that  to  which  Abraham  seems  undoubtedly  to  have 
assented  in  mind  and  purpose  is  incompatible  with 
much  religious  knowledge  or  with  high  rehgious  ideas; 
at  least  not  until  there  has  been  blotted  from  memory 
the  legal  atrocities  in  England  and  on  the  Continent 
two  centuries  ago,  and  alas!  the  horrible  lynchings 
which  are  a  disgrace  to  America  to  this  present  time. 
A  fair  and  beautiful  body  may  have  upon  it  somewhere 
a  horrible  ulcer.  So  a  hfe  of  holiness  and  piety  and  a 
community  of  great  attainment  in  divine  things  may 
yet  bear  some  hideous  remaining  spots  of  the  leprosy 
of  sin. 

v.    ISAAC 

Less  Ught  is  thrown  upon  the  career  of  Isaac  by 
archaeological  research  than  upon  the  career  of  any 
other  of  the  patriarchs.  Quite  naturally  so;  for  less 
is  related  of  Isaac  in  the  Bible  than  of  the  other  patri- 
archs. So  there  are  for  us  fewer  points  of  contact 
between  his  history  and  that  of  the  world  about  him. 
If  more  details  of  his  life  story  were  given  us,  we  might 
find  more  illustrations  from  archaeology  bearing  upon 
it.  But  the  life  he  hved  is  quite  in  keeping  with  what 
is  known  of  the  land  in  which  he  dwelt.  The  so-called 
'^  doublets"  pointed  out  by  many  critics,  in  which  it 
is  claimed  that  there  is  a  fictitious  element  in  the 
patriarchal  narrative,  else  such  like  events  would  not 
happen  to  different  people  or  such  similar  methods  be 


220         THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

employed  by  father  and  son,  can  hardly  appeal  strongly 
to  any  but  those  who  look  in  more  upon  the  artificial 
world  which  the  imagination  creates  than  out  upon 
the  real  world  of  human  experience,  and  especially  the 
Oriental  world.  Real  life  is  full  of  doublets.  Is  it 
strange  that  real  history  and  biography,  not  the  fic- 
titious life  of  mere  legend,  should  also  have  in  it  some 
doublets?  Since  when,  also,  has  it  been  discovered 
that  sons  did  not  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  their  fathers? 
And  when  did  it  come  about  that  the  harem  practices 
of  the  East  have  not  been  a  menace  to  homes  and  a 
threatening  danger  to  any  man  who  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  gratification  of  the  lustful  desire  of  princes? 
Moreover  are  we  not  to  believe  Herodotus  because 
he  tells  the  same  story  of  different  people  whom  he 
saw  in  his  travels?  So-called  ''doublets"  are  far  more 
numerous  in  this  Greek  historian  than  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

It  must  be  said,  albeit  without  bitterness  or  railing, 
that  the  mind  that  sets  much  store  by  any  objection  to 
the  historicity  of  the  patriarchal  narratives  because  of 
the  repetition  of  such  harem  tribulations  among  the 
people,  is  the  mind  of  one  who  is  primarily  a  critic, 
not  an  archaeologist,  one  who  has  put  the  analytical 
method  above  the  historical.  Such  processes  of  investi- 
gation must  fail  in  the  end,  for  at  the  last  analysis 
facts  will  rule  in  conclusions. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

The  Tribal  Period 

i.  the  descent  into  egypt  and  the  sojourn  there 

Patriarchal  history  has  now  come  to  the  consum- 
mation of  that  event  which  gave  rise  to  the  prophecy 
of  the  Christ,  "I  have  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt." 
The  actual  descent  into  Egypt  is  marked  at  this  point 
by  the  kidnapping  of  the  young  Bedouin  prince,  Joseph, 
to  be  spirited  away  to  the  Egj^^tian  slave  market. 
Archaeology  as  yet  sheds  little  Ught  upon  the  critical 
wrangle  about  "  Ishmaelites"  and  "Midianites;"  and, 
since  there  is  no  other  source  of  information  on  the 
subject,  it  is  hard  to  take  seriously  the  many  specu- 
lations of  critics  about  it  and  the  striving  on  the  part 
of  some  to  show  necessary  discord  in  the  narrative  at 
this  point.  Especially  is  this  the  case  since  we  know 
almost  absolutely  nothing  of  the  tribal  relations  among 
Arabs  east  of  the  Jordan  at  that  period,  much  less 
what  manner  of  persons  might  be  found  in  a  caravan 
which  has  roved  around,  no  one  knows  how  long  or 
in  what  directions  or  through  what  regions,  to  pick 
up  trade  for  Egypt.  Edomites  are  found  on  the  border 
of  Egypt  in  the  time  of  Meremptah  II  according  to 
the  Papyrus  Anastasia.^  Why  not,  then,  these  southern 
Arabs,  the  Midianites,  far  enough  north  to  enter  the 
northern  caravan  trail  toward  Egypt?  The  Bedouin 
are  wanderers.  The  philological  speculations  about 
these  names  are  very  interesting,  but  settle  nothing. 

221 


222  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

When,  through  archseological  research,  we  come  to 
know  something  about  the  ''IshmaeUtes"  and  "Midian- 
ites"  of  that  age,  it  will  be  time  enough  to  found  critical 
arguments  upon  this  passage  in  the  patriarchal  narra- 
tive. As  the  case  at  present  stands,  many  quibbles 
and  some  real  questions  can  be  raised  here,  but  there 
is  nothing  inherently  improbable  in  the  story. 

The  Semitic  influences  in  Egypt  of  the  age  just 
closing  furnish  the  historical  setting  for  Joseph's  day. 
All  those  conditions  which  drew  Abraham  to  Egypt 
mitigated  the  difficulties  of  Joseph's  life,  and  those  that 
made  so  natural  the  royal  reception  accorded  to  the 
first  patriarch  opened  the  way  for  his  great-grandson 
to  become  Prime  Minister.  The  history  of  kings'  favor- 
ites in  many  lands  and  the  trivialities  of  life  upon 
which  the  favoritism  ofttimes  has  turned  is  enough  of 
itself  to  make  the  story  of  Joseph  inherently  credible. 
And  since,  within  the  consciousness  of  this  present 
generation,  a  slave  girl,  the  most  helpless  of  all  human 
beings,  became  the  astute  and  powerful  Empress  and 
real  ruler  of  China,  the  historical  imagination  need 
have  no  difficulty  in  fitting  the  young  Bedouin  slave 
prince  into  the  premiership  of  Egypt  of  his  day.  The 
same  hne  of  Bedouin  Princes  was  still  on  the  throne 
as  in  the  days  of  Abraham.  The  same  bitter  resent- 
ment toward  the  foreign  intruders  made  native  Egyp- 
tian courtiers  untrustworthy  at  the  court  of  Zoan. 
Those  who  wonder  at  the  foreigner  conducting  so  great 
business  for  the  most  exclusive  nation  of  antiquity 
may  learn  something  of  the  possibility  of  such  a  thing 
by  consulting  the  diplomatic  world,  which  for  so  many 
years  transacted  its  business  with  the  great  Chinese 


THE    STORY   OF   JOSEPH  223 

Empire,  the  most  exclusive  of  modern  great  nations, 
through  an  Enghshman. 

Joseph's  Egyptian  name  and  the  name  of  his  Egyp- 
tian wife  were  inherently  certain  to  cause  critical 
trouble.  The  transliteration  of  the  Egyptian  language 
and  the  equivalency  between  Egyptian  characters  and 
the  Hebrew  letters  is  in  such  a  state  of  hapless,  it 
might  also  seem  hopeless,  uncertainty,  that  it  is  most 
natural  that  archaeologists  should  find  parallels  to 
Joseph's  name  in  different  periods  of  Egyptian  history. 
Dogmatically  to  declare,  as  it  is  declared  by  many,^ 
that  no  such  name  as  Zaphnath-paaneah  is  found  in 
Egyptian  history  until  about  the  IXth  century  b.c, 
is  to  claim  as  a  certainty  what  is  no  more  than  a 
possibihty,  if  even  that.  There  are  Egyptian  names 
of  that  period  which  afford  a  fair  equivalent  for  the 
Hebrew  form  Zaphnath-paaneah. ^  There  are  also 
other  identifications  of  the  name  at  different  periods  of 
Eg>"ptian  history.  They  are  all  in  some  good  degree 
plausible;  but  this  so  varied  plausibility  certainly  does 
not  make  certainty  at  any  point.  It  rather  militates 
against  it,  though  not  rendering  it  impossible.  But, 
in  fact,  the  identification  of  Joseph's  name  among 
Egyptian  names  which  meets  the  fewest  difficulties 
and  accords  most  exactly  with  the  narrative  in  the 
Bible  is  illustrated  by  certain  royal  names'  from  the 
time  just  preceding  the  days  of  Joseph.  ''Zaph"  is 
the  significant,  as  well  as  troublesome,  part  of  Joseph's 
name,  the  rest  of  it  is  descriptive  and  very  simple  in 
the  Egyptian.  These  royal  names  of  the  time  of  Joseph 
are  also  compounded  with  this  word  ''Zaph."  The 
phonetic  equivalency  is  most  exact  and  the  meaning 


224  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

of  the  whole  name  becomes  most  appropriate.  "The 
one  who  furnishes  the  nourishment  of  Hfe,"  i.e.,  the 
"Steward  of  the  realm." 

The  name  Asenath  really  affords  no  difficulty/  though 
there  has  been  some  discussion  about  it.  Good  illus- 
trations of  this  name  may  be  found  all  the  way  from  the 
Xlth  dynasty  to  the  XVIIIth  dynasty  long  before 
and  long  after  the  age  in  which  the  Bible  places  the 
story  of  Joseph. 

The  court  scandal  which,  in  the  strange  providence 
of  God,  was  at  the  turning  point  in  the  career  of  Joseph 
is  a  most  natural  affair  in — let  us  say  the  Orient,  to 
be  pohte.  To  discredit  this  story  as  an  independent 
narrative  because  of  the  nasty  Tale  of  Two  Brothers 
found  in  Egyptian  history  some  four  centuries  later 
seems  a  most  remarkable  caprice  of  criticism.  Is  it 
so  impossible  to  imagine  that  in  the  whole  history  of 
Egypt  there  was  more  than  one  court  scandal?  Or 
are  these  same  critics  so  ethereal  in  their  passions  as 
not  to  know  that  the  essential  elements  of  such  scandals 
are  the  same  everywhere  and  always?  Any  special 
coarseness  or  seeming  refinement  is  in  the  telling  of 
the  story.  Some  one  is  unfaithful  to  the  demands  of 
chastity,  there  is  seduction  from  one  side  or  the  other. 
These  constitute  the  framework  of  scandal,  and  lust 
supplies  all  the  rest.  Differences  between  different 
stories  are  chiefly  the  work  of  the  narrator.  Why  then, 
should  this  Tale  of  Two  Brothers  in  the  time  of  Rameses 
II  be  asserted  to  be  the  original  of  the  story  of  Joseph? 
Are  we  to  understand  that,  because  practically  every 
scandal  of  French  fiction  involves  an  unfaithful  wife 
or  a  woman  of  the  demi  monde,  that  therefore  there 


THE  STORY  OF  JOSEPH  225 

was  no  real  Madame  Pompadour?  Let  us  rather  recog- 
nize that  the  dangers  of  the  Oriental  home  life  always 
make  reasonable  just  such  an  episode  in  the  life  of  a 
manservant  about  the  house.  And  let  us  also  recognize 
as  entirely  reasonable  that  every  Egyptian  court  in 
every  age  of  Egyptian  history  could  afford  at  least  one 
court  scandal.  When  we  have  done  this,  the  utter 
unreliability  of  the  identification  of  the  story  of  Joseph 
with  the  digusting  Tale  of  Two  Brothers  will  at  once 
be  apparent.  It  is  difficult  not  to  wonder  sometimes 
whether  or  not  those,  who  talk  so  confidently  about 
these  Egyptian  romances  of  salacious  character,  ever 
really  read  the  whole  of  that  smutty  story  of  Two 
Brothers,  and  especially  if  they  know  enough  of  the 
Egyptian  tongue  to  perceive  the  real  stench  of  it. 

Archseological  evidence,  which  thus  far  in  the  career 
of  Joseph  has,  for  the  most  part,  only  cleared  difficulties 
out  of  the  way,  now  becomes  more  positive  concerning 
the  great  work  of  Joseph  the  Prime  Minister.  In  the 
tomb  of  one  Baba  at  el-Kab,  now  unfortunately  much 
mutilated,  is  an  inscription  of  the  time  of  Se-Kenen- 
Ra-Taa  III,  a  vassal  king  of  Upper  Egypt  under  the 
Hyksos  rulers.  Exact  dates  are  here  impossible,  but 
the  time  of  this  king  and  of  this  inscription  is  known 
to  be  about  the  time  of  Apophis,  the  traditional  Pharaoh 
of  Joseph  according  to  Sjnicellus.  Thus  far  none  of 
the  identifications  between  the  story  of  Baba  and  the 
history  of  Joseph  are  absolutely  certain,  but  when  we 
read  the  inscription  as  it  appeared  in  Brugsch's^  day, 
the  parallelism  of  the  two  accounts  of  certain  events 
in  the  empire  becomes  most  suggestive.  Baba  says 
"I  collected  corn,  as  a  friend  of  the  harvest  god.     I 


226  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

was  watchful  at  the  time  of  the  sowing.  And  when  a 
famine  arose,  lasting  many  years,  I  distributed  corn 
to  the  city  each  year  of  famine." 

The  coincidences  between  this  narrative  and  that  of 
the  famine  recorded  in  the  Bible  in  the  story  of  Joseph 
are  most  striking.  Great  famines  in  Egypt  are  most 
rare  and  the  details  of  this  narrative  of  Baba  follow 
very  closely  the  details  of  the  famine  story  of  the  days 
of  Joseph.  There  were  years  of  plenty  when  grain 
could  be  stored  up,  government  provision  for  storing 
it,  a  great  famine  'lasting  many  years,"  distribution 
of  aid  to  the  starving  people  from  the  government 
storehouses,  and  the  final  success  of  the  comprehensive 
plan  of  the  government,  which  extended  its  beneficence 
from  the  Capital  at  the  city  of  Zoan  far  into  Upper 
Egypt,  and  all  this  took  place  during  Hyksos  rule  at 
the  period  to  which  the  Bible  account  assigns  the 
premiership  of  Joseph.  The  substantiation  of  the  credi- 
bility of  the  Biblical  narrative  is  complete  and  the 
corroboration  of  the  actuality  of  the  events  narrated 
in  the  story  of  Joseph  becomes  very  strong. 

The  history  of  the  commercial  dealings  of  Jacob  and 
his  sons  with  Egypt  and  the  final  descent  of  the  families 
to  the  land  of  the  Nile,  which  was  ultimately  to  be  to 
them  the  land  of  bondage,  fits  likewise  exactly  into 
the  general  conditions  of  life  there  in  that  age  and 
receives  some  remarkable  historical  verifications  of  an 
incidental  character,  a  few  of  which  are  now  to  be 
cited. 

•The  coming  of  Asiatics  into  Egypt  before  the  time 
of  Jacob  is  pictured  in  the  tomb  of  Khnem-Hotep  of 
the  Xllth  dynasty  at  Beni  Hasan. '  The  similarity 
of  this  scene  to  the  entrance  of  Jacob  and  his  sons  with 


JACOB  SCARABS  227 

their  retinue  into  Egypt  is  so  strikingly  exact  that  for 
a  long  time  in  the  earlier  history  of  Egyptology  this 
was  believed  to  picture  that  patriarchal  event. 

The  Israelites  were  assigned  to  the  pasture-land  of 
Goshen.  Thus,  as  the  favorites  of  the  king's  Prime 
Minister,  they  were  given  a  place  of  safety  near  the 
court  in  that  part  of  Egypt  most  fully  occupied  by 
the  Hyksos.  Their  isolation  from  the  more  strictly 
Egyptian  communities  because  ''every  shepherd  is 
abomination  to  the  Egyptians"  finds  most  striking  con- 
firmation in  the  epithet  ''aat,"^  the  equivalent  of  the 
"abomination"  in  the  Bible,  by  which  these  foreign 
shepherd  kings  were  known  among  the  Egyptians.  So 
sedulously  do  they  adhere  to  this  contemptuous  epithet 
in  the  inscriptions  that,  to  this  day  the  ethnic  name  of 
this  dynasty  of  foreign  rulers  has  not  been  discovered. 
The  meaning  of  the  name  Hyksos,  "Bedouin  Princes," 
gives  no  clue  to  racial  identity.  The  name  Hyksos 
itself  we  learn  through  Josephus  quoting  Manetho.^ 

Several  Yaqob  scarabs*  have  been  found  among 
Egyptian  relics.  It  would  be  sheer  assumption,  with- 
out any  evidence  whatever,  to  assert  that  these  were 
made  to  commemorate  the  patriarch.  Yet  it  is  not 
impossible  nor  even  improbable  that  it  may  have  been 
so.  Scarabs  contain  only  very  important  names.  Con- 
sidering that  the  patriarch  was  held  in  high  favor  at 
the  Hyksos  court  and  that  some  Semite  of  the  name 
Yaqob  in  that  age  was  of  such  importance  as  to  be 
commemorated  on  scarabs,  the  coincidence  is  striking, 
and  does,  without  doubt,  substantiate  the  great  impor- 
tance of  Semites  at  that  tune  in  that  part  of  Egypt. 

That  some  of  the  tribes  of  Asher  and  possibly  of 
Ephraim  may  have  returned  to  Palestine  in  the  days 


228  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

of  favor  at  court  or  have  escaped  after  the  days  of 
oppression  began,  as  seems  to  be  indicated  in  Judges 
and  by  the  Chronicler/  is  so  inherently  reasonable  and 
natural  that  it  furnishes  no  ground  for  critical  argument 
either  for  or  against  the  Biblical  story.  Days  of  free- 
dom and  favor  always  are  days  of  the  liberty  of  move- 
ment. And  when  has  it  ever  been  that  slaves  did 
not  succeed  in  running  away? 

The  obsequies  for  Jacob, ^  the  embalming,  the  seventy 
days  of  mourning,  the  imposing  funeral  cortege,  and 
the  important  place  in  national  affairs  of  Egypt  accorded 
to  all  the  funeral  ceremonies,  are  just  what  is  to  be 
expected,  if  the  narrative  in  the  Bible  is  strictly  histori- 
cal. 

Let  us  summarize.  This  whole  history  of  the  descent 
into  Egypt  is  most  essentially  reasonable  and  credible. 
Undoubted  identifications  confirm  the  topographic  and 
ethnic  notices  in  the  patriarchal  story;  Egyptian  descrip- 
tions substantiate  the  manners  and  customs  depicted 
in  the  Bible;  Egyptian  scarabs  confirm  even  the  very 
name  ''Jacob"  for  that  period  in  Egypt;  Egyptian 
history  furnishes  a  similar  famine  story;  and  attests 
the  ''abomination"  in  which  "shepherds"  were  held 
and  the  Egyptian  funeral  customs  most  exactly  illus- 
trate the  funeral  and  the  mourning  for  Jacob.  This 
part  of  the  patriarchal  story  fits,  in  every  way,  exactly 
into  the  age  and  the  lands  to  which  the  Bible  attributes 
it.  It  is  readily  to  be  admitted  that  difficulties  can 
be  pointed  out,  that  archaeological  facts  may  be  so 
marshalled  as  to  make  seeming  discrepancies,  though 
no  absolute  contradictions.  There  are,  in  fact,  inex- 
plicable discrepancies  in  all  human  history.  Events 
which  take  place  under  our  very  eyes  are  ofttimes 


HEBREW  SLAVERY  IN  EGYPT  229 

inexplicable  and  seemingly  contradictory.  That  such 
like  difficulties  exist  in  the  Bible  proves  nothing  against 
the  Scripture  narrative.  The  proper  question  of  ver- 
acity in  taking  of  testimony  is  not,  Is  there  any  way 
to  make  the  witness  out  a  liar?  but,  Is  there  any  natural 
and  reasonable  way  in  which  his  statements  may  be 
true?  The  statements  of  the  patriarchal  history  are 
easily  consistent  with  every  demand  of  veracity. 

II.   HEBREW  SLAVERY  IN  EGYPT 

The  next  event  in  Bible  history,  the  coming  of  'Hhe 
king  that  knew  not  Joseph,"  may  well  be  said  to  mark 
the  next  epoch  in  Egyptian  history.  Who  was  the 
•'king  that  knew  not  Joseph?"  We  know  not,  and 
because  of  the  characteristic  silence  of  the  Egyptians 
upon  all  things  connected  with  the  Hyksos  rule,  we 
probably  will  never  know.  But  we  may  be  well  assured 
that  it  was  at  a  change  of  dynasties,  and  such  a  change 
as  saw  the  hated  foreigners  forever  dethroned  and  the 
old  native  princes  of  Egypt  coming  again  into  their 
own.  Then  the  favorites  of  the  kings,  the  petted  and 
the  hated,  a  part  of  the  ''abomination,"  must  certainly 
be  brought  down  with  the  fall  of  their  protectors. 
The  expulsion  of  the  Hyksos,  the  restoration  of  the 
native  Egyptian  government,  and  the  enslavement  of 
the  Hebrews  follow  each  other  with  the  utmost  natural- 
ness. It  is  impossible  to  determine  which  was  the 
particular  king  who  began  the  oppression.  The  con- 
flict with  the  Hebrews  was  a  long  and  bitter  one.  It 
is  highly  improbable  that  the  native  government  would 
at  first  feel  strong  enough  in  its  revived  spirit  of  nation- 
alism to  make  complete  degradation  of  the  favorites 


230  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

of  the  old  regime  immediately.  Perhaps,  as  is  thought 
by  many,  it  was  not  mitil  the  beginning  of  the  XlXth^ 
dynasty  that  the  king  arose  who  dared  wholly  to  set 
at  defiance  the  people  of  the  great  Prime  Minister 
who  had  saved  Egypt. 

Whoever  may  have  been  the  ''Pharaoh  that  knew 
not  Joseph,"  RamesesII  was  the  great  oppressor.  He 
began  to  fear  the  increasing  numbers  of  the  Hebrews, 
even  though  slaves,  and  took  cruel  and  desperate 
measures  to  make  them  characteristically  a  race  of 
women,  that  thus  the  danger  of  revolt  might  be  lessened 
or  even  entirely  averted.  It  is  frankly  admitted  that 
there  are  many  difficulties  to  be  encountered  in  the 
identification  of  the  oppressor.  There  are  questions 
which  can  not  be  satisfactorily  answered,  no  matter 
who  is  selected  as  the  oppressor.  Many  plausible 
things  can  be  said, in  favor  of  Thothmes  III  or  some  one 
of  the  great  monarchs  of  the  XVIIIth  dynasty.  It  is 
not  possible  to  clear  away  all  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  identifying  Rameses  II  as  the  oppressor,  nor 
is  it  by  possible  or  plausible  arguments  that  we  are 
to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  upon  this  subject,  but  by 
giving  heed  to  the  things  that  are  necessary  and  impera- 
tive. The  Bible  says  that  Israel  built  Pithom.  Rame- 
ses II  left  an  inscription  there  upon  which  he  says^ 
that  he  built  Pithom  at  "the  mouth  of  the  East." 
That  the  Pithom  of  both  statements  is  the  same  is 
undisputed.  Despite  Rameses'  well-known  propensity 
for  the  worst  plagiarism  in  usurping  the  inscriptions 
of  his  predecessors,  tlie  genuineness  of  this  inscription 
has  not  a  shadow  upon  it. 

There  have  been  no  erasures  or  insertions,  and  there 
is  not  the  shghtest  evidence  that  any  other  Pharaoh 


-         HEBREW  SLAVERY  IN  EGYPT  231 

built  at  Pithom,  though  there  may  have  been  a  town 
there  before  the  government  gave  the  place  national 
importance  by  making  it  a  frontier  fortress  and  base 
of  supplies.  Here,  then,  whatever  may  be  plausibly 
said  for  any  other  king  or  any  other  time  for  the  oppres- 
sion, whatever  difficulties  are  encountered  in  the  case 
of  Rameses  II  as  the  oppressor  (and  difficulties  are 
inevitable  at  every  point  in  the  fragmentary  history 
of  Egypt  from  the  monuments),  the  two  indisputable 
facts,  as  they  at  present  appear  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question,  are  that  Israel  built  Pithom  and  that 
Rameses  built  Pithom.  It  is  worse  than  disputatious- 
ness  to  ignore  these  facts  and  to  draw  back  from  the 
inevitable  conclusion  that  Rameses  was  the  oppressor, 
or  to  try  to  create  a  diversion  by  presenting  other 
candidates  for  that  infamy.  We  must  not  blink  our 
eyes  to  the  presence  of  a  clear  light  in  the  night  be- 
cause there  is  a  vast  space  of  darkness  surrounding  it. 
It  is  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  Egypt  will  ever 
furnish  more  than  incidental  information  concerning 
Hebrew  slavery.  Thus  far,  at  least,  nearly  all  the 
knowledge  we  have  concerning  Egypt  from  Egypt  is 
monumental,  of  the  usual  boastful  character  of  monu- 
mental inscriptions  among  all  nations.  These  inscrip- 
tions are  supplemented  in  Egypt  by  a  few  historical 
papyri,  some  of  which  are  also  clearly  of  a  laudatory 
character,  the  historical  value  of  which  must  be  care- 
fully determined.  Moreover  the  slave  is  a  very  humble 
man,  and  ancient  Egypt  was  one  of  the  proudest  and 
most  exclusive  of  nations.  Is  it  likely  that  such  a 
story  as  the  Bible  tells  of  Israel's  relations  with  Egypt 
will  find  a  place  in  Egyptian  literature  of  such  a  charac- 
ter as  that  which  we  possess?     So,  whatever  the  future 


232  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

may  have  in  store  for  us,  and  in  archseology  it  is  usually 
the  unexpected  that  happens,  the  past,  at  least,  is  not 
disappointing  to  us  nor  discrediting  to  the  Bible  story 
in  that  little  of  a  positive  character  has  been  found  of 
the  part  of  Egyptian  history  which  is  recorded  in 
Genesis  and  Exodus.  But  if  there  is  little  information 
of  a  direct  and  positive  kind,  there  is  much  of  an  inci- 
dental and  inferential  character  at  the  period  indicated 
by  the  entirely  incidental  synchronism  of  Israel  with 
Rameses  II  at  the  building  of  Pithom. 

Ebers,  who  was  as  learned  in  Egyptology  as  he  was 
talented  in  fiction,  in  his  Egyptian  romance  oiUarda 
represents  Hebrew  slavery  as  ever  hovering  about,  like 
the  trembling  bondman,  in  the  shadows.  The  Hebrew 
never  comes  out  plainly  into  view  in  the  story,  but 
one  is  conscious  that  he  is  waiting  near  at  hand,  ready 
to  serve.  The  art  of  the  romancer  has  here  rightly 
represented  the  sober  everyday  life  of  Egyptian  history 
at  that  period.  Many  Semitic  words  are  found  in 
the  Egyptian  language  of  that  time,  words  which 
exactly  illustrate  conditions  represented  in  the  Bible. 
We  are  told  of  "Succoth,"  shepherds'  booths,  and 
"ohel,"  a  more  permanent  tabernacle  or  tent  used 
by  soldiers  in  camp.  Then  the  Hebrew  word  for 
''master"  crept  into  Egyptian  official  reports  in  place 
of  the  common  Egyptian  title  meaning  "superinten- 
dent of  constructions,"  exactly  as  the  negro  slave  word 
''massa"  was  taken  up  into  American  English  of  slavery 
days,  but  has  now  almost  wholly  past  out  of  use  and 
will  soon  be  entirely  obsolete. 

Meremptah's  administration  in  its  early  days  was 
much  troubled  by  foreigners  in  the  land,  and  the  many 
Semitic  words  used  in  connection  with  their  move- 


MOSES  IN  EGYPT  233 

ments  indicate  that  they  were  probably  Semites.  While 
his  reign  opened  with  the  presence  of  such  troublesome 
Semitic  populations,  strange  to  say,  very  shortly  after 
he  came  to  the  throne,  Goshen,  in  the  delta,  near  the 
capital  at  Tanis,  for  some  reason  not  mentioned,  fur- 
nished an  attraction  to  Bedouin  shepherds^  of  the 
desert  who  sent  a  request  to  be  permitted  to  enter  that 
region  to  pasture  their  flocks.  Bedouin  are  wild,  free- 
roving,  fellows  who  do  not  like  to  be  cramped  for  room. 
They  must  have  thought  there  was  then  room  to  spare 
in  Goshen,  and  the  time  was  exactly  that  at  which  the 
Bible  represents  Goshen  to  have  been  deserted  by  the 
Israelites  with  their  flocks  and  herds. 

III.    MOSES 

Does  Egypt  tell  us  anything  of  Moses?  Nothing 
that  is  certain,  definite,  and  positive.  The  Bible  ac- 
count laid  alongside  of  the  Egyptian  history  of  Rame- 
ses  II  as  the  great  oppressor  gives  us  an  attractive 
picture  of  the  young  Hebrew,  the  "son  of  Pharaoh's 
daughter,"  growing  up  among  the  princes  of  Pharaoh's 
house.  Jewish  and  Arabic  tradition^  surround  this 
period  with  a  multitude  of  legends  which  do  not  for 
the  most  part  commend  themselves  as  embodying 
reliable  history.  Egyptian  records  tell  us  nothing  that 
is  indisputable,  but  give  us  one  very  curious  and  sugges- 
tive incident,  which,  if  it  does  not  concern  Moses,  at 
least  gives  us  a  picture  that  so  resembles  Moses  as  to 
make  us  think  of  him;  a  picture  of  one  just  such  as 
he  at  the  Egyptian  court  at  the  very  time  when  Moses 
was  growing  up  there.  It  is  recorded  that  among  the 
princes  and  nobles  present  at  a  great  public  function 


234  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

was  ''The  Ramoses,  child  of  the  Lady  and  Priestess 
of  the  sun-god  Ra."  That  Moses  would  have  the 
name  of  an  Egyptian  god  appended  to  his  name  while 
the  ''son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter"  is  practically  a  cer- 
tainty, the  practice  was  so  general.  But  more  even 
than  the  name  itself,  the  definite  article  prefixed  to 
the  name,  "the  Ramoses;"  and  his  remarkable  desig- 
nation as  "child  of  the  Lady,"  not  using  the  word  for 
"son"  nor  yet  the  ordinary  word  for  child,  but  a  word 
affording  a  pun  on  the  name  "Moses"  and  meaning 
"the  drawn-out  one;"  and,  above  all,  the  description 
of  this  child  not  as  the  child  of  his  father  or  even  the 
child  of  his  mother,  but  as  "the  child  of  the  Lady  and 
Priestess," — all  not  only  indicate  a  striking  resemblance 
to  the  story  of  Moses  in  Bible  history,  but  plainly  show 
a  labored  effort  on  the  part  of  the  scribe  to  describe  an 
unusual  situation.  No  Egyptologist  would  be  justified 
in  saying  that  this  Ramoses  is  Moses,  but  the  identifi- 
cation is  possible.  In  any  case,  this  incident  falls  into 
its  place  among  the  many  other  indications  which  make 
entirely  reasonable  and  credible  the  Bible  story  of 
Israelite  slavery  and  of  a  friend  of  the  oppressed  people, 
with  the  family  name  of  the  royal  house,  growing  up  at 
that  time  in  the  Court  of  Tanis. 

If  the  story  of  Moses  and  of  Hebrew  slavery  in 
Egypt  in  all  its  details  is  true,  it  will  fit  naturally  and 
without  difficulty  into  the  Egyptian  history  of  that 
period.  It  does  so.  It  is  not  necessary  in  order  to 
give  credibility  to  the  story  that  further  proof  should 
be  furnished.  Does  not,  indeed,  the  proof  thus  fur- 
nished go  still  further?  Does  mere  romantic  legend 
ever  find  such  natural  setting  and  a  place  of  such  fitness 
in  real  history? 


MOSES  IN  EGYPT  235 

It  seems  almost  superfluous  to  add  that,  in  the 
presence  of  such  perfection  of  historical  conditions  for 
the  Biblical  story  in  Egypt,  the  theory  of  the  "desert 
Egypt"  below  the  southern  boundary  of  Palestine, 
without  a  vestige  of  such  historical  conditions  to  sus- 
tain it,  is  not  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  The 
most  beautiful  and  attractive  theory  in  the  world  with- 
out any  facts,  either  of  the  necessary  actualities  or  of 
the  equally  necessary  conditions  for  the  actualities,  is 
as  worthless  as  any  other  most  charming  daydream. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

The  Tribal  Period — Continued 

iv.  the  exodus 

The  location  of  Sinai  and  the  journey  thither  is  the 
next  portion  of  Bible  history  alongside  of  which  archae- 
ological research  may  be  expected  to  lay  parallel  infor- 
mation. Let  it  be  said  frankly  that  no  one  point  in 
this  whole  journey  of  the  Exodus  can  be  positively 
identified  alone  by  evidence  independent  of  any  con- 
sideration of  other  points.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
places  should  be  so  identified  nor  would  such  identifi- 
cation possess  any  peculiar  advantage  as  evidence,  if 
it  could  be  done.  Isolated  identifications  may  be 
correct,  but  are  peculiarly  liable  to  be  mistaken  identifi- 
cations. The  most  convincing  evidence  for  any  narra- 
tive of  a  route  of  travel  is  that  which  shows  each  point 
in  the  journey  in  its  proper  relation  to  those  on  either 
side  of  it,  and  which  does  not  leave  over  any  facts  or 
incidents  of  the  journey  for  which  no  place  can  be 
provided.  The  description  of  a  route  which  so  meets 
all  the  conditions  and  attests  them  by  surrounding 
facts,  must  certainly  be  accepted  unhesitatingly  by 
any  military  strategist  as  the  correct  account  of  the 
movements  of  an  enemy.  Exactly  such  is  the  attes- 
tation of  the  route  taken  by  the  fleeing  Israelites  as 
recol^ded  in  the  Bible  and  traced  out  in  Palmer's  Route 
of  the  Exodus.  This  is  the  same  route  that  is  laid 
down  in  nearly  all  Geographical  Helps  published  by 

236 


THE  EXODUS  237 

the  great  Bible  publishers  of  the  world.  It  is  easy- 
enough  for  any  one  sitting  in  his  study  at  a  distance  of 
seven  thousand  miles  from  the  scene  of  the  events 
to  point  out  many  difficulties  in  this  identification  of  the 
route.  An  actual  journey  over  it,  however,  day  by 
day,  station  by  station,  while  reading  the  narrative  and 
studying  the  description  of  conditions  and  topography 
on  to  the  end  in  the  heart  of  the  Sinai  region  is  an  experi- 
ence on  the  subject  well-nigh  irresistible. 

The  northeast  route  by  the  ''way  of  the  PhiHstines" 
was  the  shortest  and  most  direct  route  to  the  promised 
land,  but  it  would  be  well-guarded.  Pithom  itself  was 
built  at  "the  mouth  of  the  East,"  a  part  of  the  great 
frontier  defenses  in  that  direction;  and  the  ''wall," 
another  of  the  military  defenses  of  Egypt  which  guarded 
this  way  of  entrance  by  Asiatic  invaders,  was  always 
at  this  period  of  Egyptian  history  well  garrisoned,  as 
is  indicated  in  the  inscriptions.  So  the  Israelites  turned 
about  by  the  way  of  "the  wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea." 
This  route  was  less  guarded;  for  Eastern  invaders 
never  came  this  way. 

So  the  fleeing  host  of  Israel  moved  out  to  encamp 
"before  Pi-hahiroth  between  Migdol  and  the  sea,  over 
against  Baal  Zephon."  The  topographical  situation 
thus  described  in  the  narrative  is  so  remarkably  verified 
where  Ras  Atakeh  comes  down  to  the  sea  and  nowhere 
else,  that  the  crossing  must  have  been  near  that  point. 
There,  at  the  southern  end  of  the  Egyptian  land  frontier 
on  the  east,  is  a  most  natural  situation  for  a  "Migdol," 
a  watch-tower,  and  a  suitable  plain  for  the  encampment 
lies  between  it  and  the  sea.  The  mountain  peak 
pointed  out,  though  not  certainly  identified,  as  Baal 
Zephon  is  "over  against,"  on  the  east  side  of  the  sea. 


238  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  pursuing  Egyptian  army  thrown  across  the  narrow 
space  between  the  range  of  Atakeh  and  the  sea  would 
effectually  cut  off  any  hope  of  retreat  for  the  Israelites. 
Verily,  "the  wilderness  had  shut  them  in." 

The  fiat  sand-bar  which  characterizes  the  whole 
upper  end  of  this  little  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  by  reason 
of  both  its  character  and  its  position,  is  specially  exposed 
to  the  influence  of  wind  and  tide.  As  the  tide  went 
out,  the  waters  would  go  back  ''before  an  east  wind" 
in  a  remarkable  way,  leaving  bare  a  wide  strip  of  the 
sand-bar  over  which  the  whole  host  of  Israel  could  pass 
quickly.  At  the  same  time,  the  waters  on  either  side 
would  be  ''as  a  wall"^  of  protection  from  approach  on 
either  flank.  The  Egyptians  coming  up  in  the  dark- 
ness would  not  be  able  to  tell  where  was  the  shore  line. 
Indeed,  it  is  difficult  for  any  one  at  any  time  to  tell 
just  where  the  shoreline  is  here.  Thus  the  pursuers 
followed  blindly  on  the  trail  of  the  fugitives  beyond  the 
line  of  safety.  The  wind  abated  and  the  tide  of  the 
sea  came  on  in  its  strength.  The  infiltration  gave  the 
first  warning,  as  it  clogged  their  chariot  wheels  so  that 
"they  drave  them  heavily "^  on  the  sandy  beach  turned 
to  a  quicksand  underneath  by  the  incoming  waters. 
Too  late,  they  discovered  that  they  were  beyond  the 
shore  line  and  tried  to  escape  by  retreat,  but  the  waters, 
released  from  the  pressure  of  the  wind,  rushed  in  full 
tide  to  overwhelm  them.  This  whole  narrative  is  most 
reasonable  unless  one  be  willing  arbitrarily  to  deny 
the  miraculous  timing  of  natural  agencies  with  divine 
commands. 

From  this  point  to  the  heart  of  the  Sinai  peninusla 
the  route  described  follows,  stage  by  stage,  the  route 
marked  out  by  nature,  and  followed  by  caravan  travel 


THE  TABERNACLE  IN  THE  WILDERNESS  239 

from  time  immemorial.  The  exact  distances,  the  pre- 
cise topography,  all  the  local  coloring  appears  as  one 
goes  along.  That  it  is  found  to  be  so  is  the  last  Unk 
in  the  chain  of  evidence  for  the  place  of  the  crossing. 
If  it  were  located  much  farther  north,  the  first  journey 
of  ''three  days"  would  be  impossible.  The  description 
in  the  Bible  is  most  exact.  Some  travelers,  preparing 
for  this  same  trip,  inquired  about  a  guidebook.  The 
answer  was,  "Take  your  Bible.  It  is  the  best."  And 
it  was.  Baedaker  has  never  issued  a  guidebook  that  is 
so  graphic  as  is  the  book  of  Exodus  for  this  journey. 

V.  THE  TABERNACLE  IN  THE  WILDERNESS 

''See  thou  make  all  things  according  to  the  pattern 
showed  thee  in  the  mount."  So  God  instructed  Moses. 
So  always  the  architect  instructs  the  builder.  This 
instruction  implies  neither  anything  new  nor  anything 
old  in  the  plan.  It  merely  directs  the  builder  which 
plan,  out  of  all  possible  or  feasible  plans,  he  is  to  follow 
in  the  building.  The  plan  itself,  in  this  case,  can  be 
learned  only  from  the  building  erected,  as  we  have  it 
described  in  Exodus.  It  was  an  Egyptian  building. 
The  main  features  of  its  architecture  are  the  main  and 
unvarying  features  of  Egyptian  architecture  in  the 
humble  home  of  the  peasant,  in  the  palace  of  the  prince, 
in  the  tomb,  the  home  of  the  dead,  and  in  the  temple, 
the  home  of  the  gods.  There  was  here  in  the  taber- 
nacle, as  everywhere  in  Egypt,  the  outer  court,  the 
inner  assembly  room,  and  the  private  apartment. 

The  furnishing  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  symbolism, 
also,  in  part  at  least,  reflect  Egyptian  ideas  and  coloring. 
The  ark  is  very  like  the  sacred  box  of  the  Egyptians. 


240  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  mysterious  cherubim,  as  they  are  not  clearly 
understood,  cannot  be  clearly  identified;  but  there  is 
very  suggestive  Egyptian  symbolism  which  they  much 
resemble.  The  overshadowing  of  wings  is  markedly 
Egyptian,  though  the  Babylonians  had  already  adopted 
it,  and  later  it  entered  into  the  Bible  as  one  of  the 
most  beautiful  figures  of  speech  in  the  language  of 
psahnists  and  prophets  and  of  the  Lord  himself. 

These  architectural  forms,  these  natural  types  and 
symbols,  are  God's  own.  That  idolatrous  Egyptians 
used  them  did  not  make  them  theirs  or  deprive  God 
of  the  right  to  use  his  own.  So  that,  stripped  of  all 
idolatrous  significance,  they  were  adopted  and  adapted 
for  the  revelation  of  divine  truth. ^ 

These  things  are  true  of  the  architecture  and  symbol- 
ism of  the  tabernacle  no  matter  when  the  Pentateuch 
was  written.  But  the  structure  and  furnishing  of  the 
tabernacle  fit  best  into  the  Mosaic  age,  where  the 
narrative  of  the  Bible  places  them.  The  theory  which 
makes  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  a  mere  pro- 
jection from  later  times  upon  the  wilderness  life  as  upon 
a  screen,  meets  with  difficulties  which  its  advocates 
have  never  removed  or  satisfactorily  explained.  If 
a  late  priestly  writer  devised  the  tabernacle  upon  the 
model  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  how  does  it  come 
that,  in  that  age,  this  temple  model  was  in  so  many 
essential  parts  distinctly  Egyptian?  That  Phoenician 
elements  entered  into  it  is  quite  natural,  considering 
the  relation  which  existed  between  Solomon  and  Hiram 
king  of  Tyre.  But  these  Phoenician  elements  are  not 
found  in  the  tabernacle.  The  explanation  of  the  unique 
wing  symbolism  of  the  temple  and  the  tabernacle  by 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  symbolism  is  a  foreshorten- 


THE  TABERNACLE  IN  THE  WILDERNESS  241 

ing  of  the  view  that  does  not  commend  the  scholarly 
character  of  it;  for  every  Egyptologist  knows,  and 
every  Assyriologist  ought  to  know,  that  the  over- 
shadowing of  wings  so  prominent  in  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  sculpture  is  only  a  rather  clumsy  adaptation 
of  Egyptian  symbolism.  It  is  impossible  to  give  any 
satisfactory  reason  why  Solomon  should  have  made 
the  temple  so  peculiarly  Egyptian,  except  the  simple 
and  manifest  explanation  plainly  intended  by  the  narra- 
tive in  the  Bible,  that  he  fashioned  it  after  the  taber- 
nacle. Any  explanation  which  rests  upon  supposed 
cordiality  between  Israel  and  Egypt  evinced  by  the 
marriage  of  Solomon  with  an  Egyptian  princess  limps 
very  badly.  Oriental  marriages  have  nothing  to  do 
with  sentiment,  but  are  entirely  for  convenience,  which 
in  international  affairs  means  diplomacy.  Considering 
the  frequency  with  which  wars  were  terminated  by 
the  innnolation  of  some  helpless  princess  on  the  marriage 
altar  as  the  wife  of  the  royal  enemy,  it  is  far  more  to 
be  suspected  that  this  Egyptian  Princess  was  a  diplo- 
matic agent  for  preserving  peace;  that  is  to  say,  in 
unvarnished  English,  a  hostage  from  her  father  and 
a  spy  upon  her  husband.  A  careful  study  of  the 
history  at  this  juncture  of  affairs  will  make  plain  also 
that  the  marrying  of  this  princess  was  the  way  by  which 
Solomon  got  Gezer  fully  and  finally,  and  thus  completed 
his  empire  in  that  quarter,  and  secured  the  withdrawal 
of  the  finger  Egypt  had  always  kept  upon  this  little 
spot  from  the  time  of  the  entrance  of  Israel  into  the 
land.i 

No  such  difficulties  as  these  are  encountered  by  the 
view  that  sees  in  the  account  of  the  tabernacle  a 
simple  narrative  of  facts  in  the  days  of  Moses  when 


242  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

all  the  mental  furniture  of  Israelite  thought  was  of 
Egyptian  make.  Egyptian  forms  and  symbolism  were 
more  understood  by  them  than  any  other  that  might 
have  been  chosen.  Thus  this  view  of  the  history  of 
the  tabernacle  agrees  naturally  and  completely  with 
the  archaeological  evidence. 

VI.  THE  TURNING  BACK  AT  KADESH  BARNEA 

Finally,  in  this  part  of  the  Biblical  history,  the  turn- 
ing back  of  Israel  from  Kadesh  Barnea  to  wander  in 
the  wilderness  fits  entirely  into  the  requirements  of 
the  boastful  inscription^  of  Meremptah  II  and  agrees 
with  the  one  chronological  note  there  given.  That 
inscription  is  dated  in  the  fifth  year  of  Meremptah  II 
and  declares  that  "the  Israelites  are  defeated,  their 
seed  is  destroyed."  At  the  death  of  Rameses  II,  the 
king  who  sought  Moses'  life,  and  at  the  accession  of 
Meremptah  II,  Moses  is  sent  to  Egypt.  If  one  year 
be  allowed  for  the  preparation  and  the  return,  and 
one  year  for  the  plagues,  as  their  character  seems  to 
require,^  and  two  years  for  the  journey  from  Egypt 
to  Kadesh  Barnea,  then  this  failure  of  Israel  to  enter 
Canaan  and  the  disappearance  in  the  wilderness  would 
be  in  Meremptah's  fifth  year.  His  boast  would  be 
a  most  natural  one.  Remembering  the  cruel  efforts 
made  to  destroy  the  equilibrium  of  the  sexes  in  Israel 
and  to  make  the  Israelites  characteristically  a  nation 
of  women,  it  was  very  easy  for  the  Pharoah  to  make, 
perhaps  even  to  believe,  the  specious  claim  that  the 
final  victory  was  with  Egypt  in  the  failure  of  Israel  to 
enter  the  promised  land,  and  to  indulge  in  the  sarcastic 
gibe  that  "Khar  [Palestine]  is  become  as  the  widows 


THE   PENTATEUCHAL  QUESTION  243 

of  Egypt/'i  because  deprived  of  Israel.  Thus  far  Bib- 
lical history  falls  in  most  naturally  and  simply  with  the 
results  of  archaeological  research. 

VII.    THE  PENTATEUCHAL  QUESTION 

We  have  now  come  to  that  point  upon  which  every- 
thing finally  turns.  Does  the  history  of  literature 
among  Hebrew  people  begin  as  early  as  this  period? 
If  this  question  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  then 
there  will  at  once  arise  the  still  more  crucial  question, 
Are  there  any  purely  archaeological  indications  that 
the  Pentateuch  did  come  from  this  Mosaic  age? 

That  the  age  of  Moses  was  a  literary  age  not  only 
in  Egypt  and  Babylonia  but  also  in  Palestine  is  a 
settled  question.  The  abundant  Egyptian  literature, 
with  inscriptions  from  even  the  desert  of  Sinai,  and  the 
large  remaining  collection  of  Tell  Amarna  tablets  must, 
from  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  but  fragmentary 
illustrations  of  such  a  widespread  literary  culture  as 
makes  ample  literary  room  and  preparation  for  the 
Pentateuch  and  for  the  production  of  a  much  larger 
general  literature,  which  is  probably  forever  lost.  So 
it  is  admitted  by  all  classes  of  critics  that  the  patriarchs 
could  have  written,  that  the  mere  literary  requirements 
of  the  Pentateuch  might  have  been  met  in  the  Mosaic 
age.  Whether  this  was  possible  in  their  own  tongue 
and  by  a  script  peculiar  to  themselves  is  still  a  mooted 
question,  but  its  answer  one  way  or  the  other  does  not 
essentially  affect  the  main  question.  If  Palestinian 
people  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  could  write 
letters  to  Egypt  by  means  of  a  Babylonian  script,^ 
there  is  no  necessity  that  the  Hebrews  should  have 


244  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

their  own  script  in  order  to  write  the  Pentateuch  when 
they  had  just  come  out  of  Egypt. 

So  the  form  of  the  question  today  is  not,  Could  the 
patriarchs  have  written?  but,  Did  they  write?  not, 
Could  Moses  have  produced  a  Pentateuch?  but,  Did 
some  one  in  the  Mosaic  age  produce  the  Pentateuch 
which  we  now  have'?  There  are  certain  archaeological 
indications  that  the  Pentateuch  substantially  as  we 
have  it  today,  in  its  parts  and  as  a  whole,  did  come 
from  the  Mosaic  age. 

The  historical  notice  of  the  land  of  Rameses  in  the 
account^  of  the  arrival  of  Jacob  and  the  families  of 
Israel  in  Egypt  furnishes  archaeological  evidence  of 
peculiar  value,  because  of  its  incidental  character.  One 
of  the  historians  of  the  early  period  of  American  dis- 
covery says  of  an  explorer  that  he  searched  the  north 
Atlantic  coast  as  far  down  as  Hartford.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  very  common  in  early  colonial  history  to 
call  New  York,  New  Amsterdam.  In  neither  case  is 
any  explanation  by  the  historian  needed.  He  may 
use  either  the  name  by  which  the  place  was  known  at 
the  time  of  which  he  writes,  or  at  the  time  at  which 
he  writes  without  any  explanation.  Habits  of  human 
thought  create  a  mutual  understanding,  a  kind  of  com- 
pact of  intelUgibihty,  which  allows  this  liberty.  But, 
if  he  give  the  place  some  other  name,  he  must  explain 
himself,  must  locate  himself  and  his  readers,  or  the 
compact  of  intelligibility  between  them  would  be  vio- 
lated and  his  work  would  be  nonsense.  Any  historian 
who  should  write  in  these  days  of  a  city  on  Manhattan 
Island  in  the  early  times  and  call  it  neither  New  Amster- 
dam nor  New  York,  but  some  fanciful  name  without 
any  explanation,  would  make  hnnself  ridiculous.     In 


THE  PENTATEUCHAL  QUESTION  245 

fact  it  is  never  so  done.  Now  the  author  of  Genesis 
says:  *'And  Joseph  placed  his  father  and  his  brethren 
and  gave  them  a  possession  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in 
the  best  of  the  land,  in  the  land  of  Rameses,  as  Pharaoh 
had  commanded."  He  calls  the  land  ''Rameses"  with- 
out any  explanation.  If  he  used  the  name  of  the  land 
at  the  time  of  which  he  wrote,  or  at  the  time  at  which 
he  wrote,  no  explanation  was  needed  for  the  readers; 
otherwise  he  must  have  explained  himself.  He  did 
not  explain  himself.  Did  he  then  use  the  name  of 
the  place  at  the  time  at  which  he  wrote,  or  at  the  time 
of  which  he  wrote;  or  was  the  time  of  which  he  wrote 
the  time  at  which  he  wrote?  Only  two  answers  have 
arisen  to  contest  the  place  for  acceptance:  One  that 
the  author  was  Moses  or  some  other  person  at  the  time 
of  the  Exodus,  the  other  that  he  was  a  scribe  at  the 
time  of  Hezekiah,  or  of  Josiah,  or  of  the  exile,  nine, 
ten,  eleven  centuries  after  the  time  of  which  he  wrote.  ^ 
This  latter  view  meets  insuperable  obstacles.  A  scribe 
of  that  late  date,  if  he  were  the  author  of  this  passage, 
did  not  call  the  place  by  its  name  at  the  time  at  which 
he  wrote,  for  the  name  had  passed  out  of  Egyptian 
history  centuries  before.  The  City  of  Rameses,  from 
the  neighborhood  of  which  the  children  of  Israel  set 
out,  perished.  The  Ramesside  dynasty,  which  gave 
its  name  to  so  many  things  and  places  during  its  time, 
also  passed  away,  and  many  other  dynasties  had  suc- 
ceeded in  order  before  the  days  of  this  scribe  of  the 
Vth  or  Vllth  century  B.C.  Moreover,  the  ''land  of 
Rameses"  was  never  a  general  name  for  Egypt,  but 
only  a  local  name  for  a  small  district  in  the  neighbor- 
hood to  which  Israel  was  assigned,  and  that  only  for  a 
limited  time.     As  the  scribe  did  not  call  this  place  by 


246  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

its  name  at  the  time  at  which  he  wrote,  so  neither  did 
he  call  it  by  its  name  at  the  time  of  which  he  wrote. 
Rameses  was  not  an  Egyptian  name  in  the  days  of  the 
Hyksos  king  under  whom  Joseph  hved  nor  for  nearly 
four  hundred  years  afterwards.  Thus  the  scribe  would 
have  called  the  place  by  a  name  which  was  not  its 
name  at  the  time  at  which  he  wrote  nor  at  the  time  of 
which  he  wrote,  but  by  some  other  name,  without 
explanation,  and  thus  have  made  his  writing  nonsense. 
Moreover,  if  this  scribe  did  use  neither  the  name  of  the 
place  at  the  time  at  which  he  wrote,  nor  at  the  time  of 
which  he  wrote,  but  some  other  name;  i.e.,  Rameses, 
how  did  he  know  that  name?  Was  he  an  expert 
Egyptologist?  Did  he  so  many  centuries  after  the 
Ramesside  dynasty  was  at  an  end  and  the  whilom 
name  of  this  little  district  forgotten  in  Egypt,  search 
out  the  buried  and  forgotten  history  of  that  age  and 
recover  this  name  there?  And  if  he  did  so,  on  what 
principle  did  he  choose  this  particular  name?  If  it 
may  be  supposed  that  he  simply  gave  it  a  name  from 
the  well-known  names  of  Egypt,  did  Providence  direct 
the  rascal  to  select  a  name  which  turned  out  to  be  the 
exact  name  of  a  petty  district  in  that  neighborhood 
and  that  the  very  one  in  which  Israel  lived  and  at  the 
very  time  at  which  they  took  their  departure?  From 
all  these  absurdities,  how  refreshing  it  is  to  turn  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  when 
the  "land  of  Rameses"  was  an  intelligible  expression 
for  the  region  round  about  the  Store  City  from  which 
Israel  set  out,  and  to  find  "the  author  calling  the  place 
in  which  they  located  Joseph's  father  and  brethren  by 
the  familiar  name  by  which  it  was  known  at  the  time 
at  which  he  wrote,  just  as  the  historian  said:  ''The 


THE  PENTATEUCHAL  QUESTION  247 

early  explorer  searched  the  north-Atlantic  coast  as  far 
down  as  Hartford." 

The  obscurity  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  in 
the  Pentateuch  has  also  an  important  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  the  time  of  authorship.  The  argument 
from  silence  is  here  in  a  very  peculiar  form.  As  it  is 
strongly  urged  at  this  point  against  the  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  in  the  Mosaic  age,  its  use  in  favor  of 
it  will  need  no  justification.  In  fact,  the  comparative 
silence  of  the  Pentateuch  on  this  great  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  exists  and  must  be  accounted  for.  Re- 
membering the  popular  belief  at  the  present  time  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  among  the 
Egyptians  of  that  age,  the  objection  raised  against  the 
Mosaic  authorship  because  of  the  obscurity  of  the 
doctrine  in  the  Pentateuch  is  the  most  real  and  reason- 
able objection  that  has  been  presented.  How  could 
the  Pentateuch,  composed  at  that  time,  leave  in  such 
obscurity  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  among  a 
people  just  come  out  of  Egypt?  It  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked that  the  advocates  of  a  late  authorship  for  the 
Pentateuch  have  the  same  problem  of  accounting  for 
this  silence.  Considering  the  utterances  of  the  Psalm- 
ist,i  of  Job,2  of  Isaiah,"  of  Ezekiel,*  and  of  Daniel,^ 
in  the  period  in  which  they  claim  the  Pentateuch  was 
being  produced,  their  problem  is  scarcely  less  trouble- 
some. They  may  be  left  to  wrestle  with  their  own 
difficulties,  with  only  this  admonition  that  they  can 
never  justly  claim  to  have  '' assured  results"  until  they 
have  satisfactorily  solved  this  problem. 

There  is  a  most  satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem 
in  the  Mosaic  age.  The  so-called  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  among  the  ancient  Egyptians  down   to 


248  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

the  time  of  the  departure  of  Israel,  was  not  a  doctrine 
of  resurrection  at  all,  but  a  doctrine  of  resuscitation.^ 
It  never  progressed  beyond  this  until  later  times  and 
did  not  rise  to  be  a  real  doctrine  of  resurrection  until 
the  light  of  Christian  doctrine  shone  round  about.  The 
ancient  Egyptians  had  no  conception  of  the  Biblical 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  that  doctrine  which  shines 
out  ever  more  and  more  clearly  until  we  have  the 
words  of  Paul,  which  have  fixed  from  that  time  to 
this  the  Christian  conception  of  resurrection:  ''It  is 
sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 
There  is  a  natural  body  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body." 
The  Egyptian  doctrine  in  that  age  of  the  Exodus  was 
grossly  materialistic.  True,  there  was  always  some- 
thing ghostly  in  their  conception  of  hfe  after  death, 
yet  there  was  always  the  most  confident  expectation 
of  coming  forth  again  from  the  tomb  to  the  same  old 
life  of  sensual  enjoyment,  feeding  upon  *'oxen,  geese, 
bread,  beer,  wine,  and  all  good  things."  Even  while 
the  body  lay  in  the  tomb  these  things  were  supplied 
in  the  greatest  abundance  for  the  use  of  the  dead  man. 
Could  such  a  doctrine  of  the  rising  from  the  dead  be 
used  as  a  starting  point  for  the  Biblical  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection?  Could  any  approach  be  made  to 
the  Biblical  doctrine  until  first  the  people  learned 
spiritual  conceptions  of  God,  of  worship,  and  of  the 
other  world?  Any  mention  of  the  rising  from  the  dead 
to  a  people  just  come  out  of  Egypt  at  that  time  would 
inevitably  and  necessarily  have  carried  over  into  Israel's 
reUgjon  all  the  materiahstic  "conceptions  of  the  Egypt- 
ian doctrine  of  resuscitation.  The  only  way  to  avoid 
this  was  to  avoid  any  mention  of  the  subject  until 
such  time  as  Israel  had  been  weaned  away  from  the 


THE  PENTATEUCHAL  QUESTION  249 

Egyptian  doctrine  and  had  attained  to  some  good 
degree  of  spiritual  conceptions. 

Thus,  Israel's  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian  idea  of 
the  resurrection,  so  far  from  being  a  reason  for  the 
presence  of  the  doctrine  in  the  Pentateuch,  if  written 
at  that  time,  is  a  good  and  very  sufficient  reason  for 
the  obscurity  in  which  that  doctrine  is  left.  And  the 
Mosaic  age  becomes  the  only  time  in  the  history  of 
Israel  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Exile  when  the  obscurity 
of  this  doctrine  in  the  Pentateuch  is  entirely  explicable. 
By  reason  of  this  result  of  the  process  of  exclusion,  the 
argument  from  silence  in  this  case  reasons  very  strongly 
for  the  Mosaic  age  as  the  time  of  the  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch.  That  there  is  progress  of  doctrine 
in  revelation  and  that  last  things  are  properly  put 
last  is  true,  and  will  account  for  the  full  revelation  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  coming  only  in  apostolic 
times,  but  will  not  account  for  the  almost  entire  absence 
of  even  incidental  reference  to  this  doctrine  in  the 
Pentateuchal  part  of  revelation,  if  it  is  to  be  put  far 
down  the  course  after  the  psalmists  and  the  prophets 
were  already  keeping  the  doctrine  before  the  minds 
of  the  people. 

Another  archaeological  indication  concerning  the  date 
of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  found  in  the 
presence  and  peculiar  use  of  certain  Egyptian  words 
scattered  all  through  the  various  parts  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. These  words  are  of  such  unusual  meaning  and 
of  such  temporary  use  in  Egypt,  belong  so  peculiarly 
to  the  place  and  the  times  and  are  used  with  such 
absolute  accuracy  throughout  the  Pentateuch,  that  it 
is  incredible  that  scribes  of  a  late  period  in  Israel's 
history  could  have  attained  to  such  a  linguistic  nicety. 


250  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  passages  in  which  these  words  occur  must  have 
come  from  the  Mosaic  age,  the  only  age  when  some  of 
them  were  employed  in  Egypt.  The  presentation  of 
this  evidence  would  of  itself  make  a  volume.  Some 
of  it  has  already  been  given.  ^  The  remainder  must 
be  seen  by  consulting  the  references. 

Moreover,  the  passages  in  which  these  words  occur 
are  so  distributed  through  the  Pentateuch,  are  so  woven 
into  the  very  fibre  of  it,  and  are  so  essential  to  the 
context,  that  they  extend  their  certification  far  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  passages  in  which  they  occur. 

It  may  be  said  of  these  words,  and,  indeed,  of  all 
these  archaeological  indications  of  the  Mosaic  age  in 
the  literature  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  they  only  tend 
to  show  that  certain  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  prob- 
ably date  from  that  period.  These  portions,  however, 
are  found  upon  examination  to  be  from  all  the  principal 
hypothetical  authors  which  the  critics  find  in  the 
Pentateuch.  How  did  such  philological  data  come  to 
be  divided  around  among  them?  Facts  of  Egyptian 
history  of  that  age  might  reasonably  be  supposed  to 
be  used  in  composition  by  all  the  different  authors  of 
documents  at  different  ages  of  Bible  history,  but  can 
any  one  imagine  certain  Egyptian  words  of  peculiar 
use,  belonging,  as  in  some  of  these  cases,  exclusively 
to  the  Mosaic  age,  yet  running  all  through  these  various 
authors  of  different  ages  and  different  lands?  That 
would  look  as  though  there  must  have  been  spiritual 
collusion  among  them,  mind  reaching  out  to  mind 
across  the  centuries.  And  when  it  is  noted  how  much 
of  the  narrative  of  those  portions  in  which  the  Egyptian 
words  occur  is  necessarily  carried  with  the  words,  there 
is  evidenced  a  still  more  inextricable  mingling  of  the 


THE  PENTATEUCHAL  QUESTION  251 

authors  and  the  documents  and  the  centuries,  so  that 
it  begins  already  to  look  very  much  as  though  the 
whole  Pentateuch  was  being  carried  with  these  Egyptian 
words  to  the  Mosaic  age. 

Then  when  the  archaeological  data  of  the  Mosaic 
age  are  laid  all  along  the  course  of  the  Pentateuchal 
narrative,  it  is  found  to  be  so  uniformly  harmonious 
with  that  narrative,  with  the  customs,  the  institutions, 
the  topography,  the  itineraries,  and  the  history,  as 
far  as  these  are  known,  all  the  way  from  the  shadows 
of  Hebrew  slavery  in  Egypt  to  the  fifth  year  of  Merem- 
ptah  and  the  turning  back  from  Kadesh  Barnea,  as  to 
make  one  marvel  that  different  authors  in  different 
centuries  should  have  been  so  uniformly  successful  in 
the  representations  of  historical  fiction. 

When  it  is  still  further  noted  that  this  narrative, 
which  has  such  exactly  corresponding  archaeological 
data,  is  so  put  together  as  to  make  a  simple,  natural, 
well-articulated,  and  symmetrical  biography  of  a  man, 
not  such  a  haphazard  man  of  irregular  and  fragmentary 
career  as  might  be  conceived  to  result  from  such  inci- 
dental coming  together  of  elements,  but  a  colossal  man 
of  such  grandeur  and  such  cUmaxes  as  that  not  until 
the  coming  of  the  "Son  of  Man"  could  it  be  said  that 
"a,  greater  than  Moses  is  here,"  then  these  archae- 
ological correspondences  imperatively  demand  the  com- 
position of  that  whole  connected  story  in  the  Mosaic 
age.  It  is  quite  behevable  that  a  single  work  of  fiction, 
the  work  of  one  mind,  and  struck  off  at  one  time,  may 
easily  contain  so  symmetrical  a  life  story.  To  most 
people  it  will  not  seem  possible  that  a  scrapbook  should 
do  so.  Much  less  will  it  appear  credible  that  a  scrap- 
book  made  up  of  .many^and  varied  excerpts  of  different 


252  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

ages  and  put  together  finally  by  some  one  long  after 
the  time  of  all  the  original  authors  should  accomplish 
this  feat. 

The  schools  of  criticism  that  have  sought  to  account 
for  the  Pentateuch  in  detail  have  not  as  yet  been  emi- 
nently and  satisfactorily  successful  and,  if  they  were 
so,  yet  would  their  task  be  but  half  finished.  There 
would  be  yet  remaining  to  them  the  colossal  and  as 
yet  unattempted  problem  of  accounting  for  the  phenom- 
ena of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole  in  such  a  way  as  will 
be  in  harmony  with  the  critical  results  upon  the  details. 
It  seems  a  hopeless  task  to  attempt  to  do  this.  And 
when  side  by  side  with  these  phenomena  of  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  whole  are  found  the  phenomena  of  archae- 
ological history  in  exact  and  harmonious  parallelism, 
the  criticism  which  postulates  authorship  in  the  Mosaic 
age  is  the  only  criticism  that  presents  the  essential 
element  of  adequacy. 

That  there  were  some  small  additions  made  to  the 
Pentateuch  at  a  later  date  seems  certain.  That  there 
may  have  been  a  few  changes  in  some  of  the  laws  to 
adapt  them  to  a  later  age  is  possible,  if  not  even  prob- 
able. These  things  do  not  militate  against  the  original 
authorship  in  the  Mosaic  age.  That  there  should  still 
remain  may  difficulties,  many  dark  passages,  is  quite 
to  be  expected.  They  are  not  more  than  Occidenbals 
usually  encounter  in  Oriental  literature,  or  Orientals 
in  Occidental  literature.  And  if  it  be  possible  to  con- 
ceive of  the  ancients  reading  a  modern  book,  probably 
reason  will  require  a  larger  margin  still  to  be  left  to 
the  dark  places  and  the  difficulties. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

The  National  Period 

The  national  period  of  Israel's  career  presents  such  a 
variety  of  subjects,  covers  such  a  breadth  of  history, 
and  is  paralleled  at  so  much  more  frequent  intervals 
by  archaeological  results,  that  only  the  most  important 
points  of  contact  between  biblical  and  secular  history 
can  be  noticed  in  this  summary,  and  these  only  in  a 
very  comprehensive  manner. 

I.      THE    WIDENESS    OF    GOD's    PROVIDENCE 

While  the  IsraeUtes  were  journeying  throughout  the 
remainder  of  the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  for  their 
unbehef  and  weakness  at  Kadesh  Barnea,  two  genera- 
tions of  boys  were  born  and  reared,  without  government 
interference,  to  restore  in  some  good  measure  the 
equilibrium  of  the  sexes  disturbed  by  the  cruel  repres- 
sive measures  adopted  by  Egypt.  The  tribes  were 
meanwhile  cemented  into  a  nation  and  the  people 
somewhat  grounded  in  the  great  teachings  of  revelation 
and  their  faith  strengthened  to  be  able  for  the  task 
before  which  it  failed  at  Kadesh  Barnea.  At  the  same 
time,  changes  were  in  progress  in  Palestine  of  which 
we  have  but  indistinct  information,  and  that  only  by 
the  radiance  that  shines  forward  from  the  Tell  Amarna 
period,  and  is  reflected  back  from  the  conquest  period. 
Certain  it  is  that  Palestine  from  being  a  great,  strong 

253 


254  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

province,  first  of  Babylonia  and  then  of  Egypt,  fell 
away  to  a  kind  of  independence  that  proved  to  be  her 
own  weakness.  So  that  at  the  time  Israel  entered  the 
land  there  was  no  strong,  centralized  government,  but 
only  various  tribes  apparently  federated  in  some  loose 
manner,  as  they  are  always  mentioned  together:  ''The 
Canaanites  and  the  Hittites,  and  the  Hivites,  and  the 
Perizzites,  and  the  Girgashites,  and  the  Amorites,  and 
the  Jebusites."  The  authority  within  these  tribes 
seems  also  to  have  been  broken  up  so  that  every  city 
had  its  ''king,"  probably  little  more  than  a  mayor, 
who  acted  with  much  independence  in  making  war  and 
concluding  alHances.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  seems 
coming  on  in  the  second  century  before,  as  reflected 
in  the  Tell  Amarna  tablets.  In  that  correspondence, 
Egyptian  governors  in  Palestine  report  the  disintegra- 
tion of  the  provincial  government  before  the  "Habiri," 
probably  "confederates."  It  is  possible  that  these 
"confederates"  are  nearly  the  same  as  the  group  above 
referred  to  which  is  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, though  there  is  as  yet  not  sufficient  evidence  to 
establish  this  as  a  fact. 

The  two  things  that  stand  out  clearly  at  the  entrance 
of  Israel  into  the  promised  land  are  the  strength  of 
the  invaders  and  the  weakness  of  the  land.  The  wide- 
ness  of  God's  providence,  "like  the  wideness  of  the 
sea,"  took  in  both  the  sin  of  Israel  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  Canaanite  national  disintegration  on  the  other. 
Thus  the  representations  of  Scripture  for  this  period 
fit  •  naturally  and  harmoniously  into  the  conditions 
imposed  by  history  as  far  as  they  are  known  to  us. 


THE  GENEALOGICAL  LISTS  255 

II.    THE   GENEALOGICAL  LISTS 

One  coDsideration  suggested  by  the  national  life  of 
Israel  is  best  noticed  here  at  this  point,  though  the 
evidence  is  scattered  far  along  the  historical  course.  It 
is  a  truism  that  the  operation  of  the  law  of  cause  and 
effect  ever  links  human  history  backward  and  forward. 
Causes  at  work  today  are  a  prophecy  of  effects  which 
will  only  be  seen  in  some  far  away  tomorrow.  Effects 
apparent  today  link  us  irrefragably  to  a  past  which  we 
cannot  deny,  if  we  would.  The  negro  is  a  very  real 
factor  in  American  national  life  today.  If  the  record 
of  his  past  were  blotted  out  of  human  annals,  yet  would 
his  race  proclaim  his  origin  and  his  dialect  equally 
attest  his  former  relation  to  the  white  man.  It  is 
well  to  inquire  here  if  the  national  life  of  Israel  furnishes 
any  facts  which  reach  back  beyond  this  point  at  which 
we  have  now  arrived  and  link  the  national  period  of 
Israel  with  her  past  history,  and  especially  to  note 
how  the  career,  which  may  thus  be  indicated,  compares 
with  the  sacred  record. 

One  such  link  is  found  in  the  genealogical  lists. 
The  Bible  story  represents  the  early  history  of  the 
people  of  Israel  to  have  been  spent  in  Egypt  during  a 
long  period  of  favoritism  and  prosperity  followed  by 
an  uncertain,  but  probably  shorter,  period  of  harsh 
oppression  and  cruelty.  Then  came  their  escape.  And 
we  are  quickly  surprised  to  find  that,  at  the  first  serious 
discomfort,  the  refugees  were  ready  to  return  to  Egypt. 
Evidently,  despite  its  hardships,  it  still  held  much 
attraction  for  them.  Then  followed  the  making  of 
the  nation  in  the  wilderness  and  the  growth  of  a  rival 
national  spirit  in  Palestine. 


256  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Such  history,  if  real,  must  inevitably  be  manifest 
in  the  names  of  the  people.  The  days  of  prosperity 
in  Egypt,  whose  attraction  for  them  not  even  the  hard- 
ships of  slavery  could  so  counteract  that  they  should 
not  be  strongly  drawn  to  return  thither,  must  have 
resulted  in  the  commingling  of  Egyptian  and  Hebrew 
names  in  Hebrew  families.  The  changes  which  rapidly 
take  place  in  the  names  of  emigrants  are  well  known. 
The  same  influences  which  operated  when  the  people 
emigrated  from  Palestine  to  Egypt  would  operate  again 
when  they  left  Egypt  for  Palestine.  After  the  Exodus 
and  the  beginning  of  the  growth  of  the  national  spirit, 
these  Egyptian  names  would  as  certainly  pass  out  from 
among  the  people  and  soon  disappear. 

A  comparison  of  the  names  in  the  genealogical  lists 
with  a  list  of  Egyptian  proper  names  presents  great 
difficulties.  The  Egyptian  is  a  dead  language  and 
though  Hebrew  is  still  spoken  ancient  pronunciation 
of  it  is  involved  in  almost  as  much  uncertainty  as  if 
it  also  were  a  dead  language.  So  that  the  equivalency 
of  Hebrew  letters  and  Egyptian  characters  has  never 
been  well  made  out.  Different  scholars  have  attempted 
the  problem  presented  by  the  genealogical  lists;  none 
has  ever  entirely  completed  it.  But  some  things  are 
clear  enough.  There  are  in  these  lists  some  names 
undoubtedly  Egyptian  and  many  that  have  a  sus- 
piciously Egyptian  appearance  and  a  very  uncertain 
and  unsatisfactory  Hebrew  etymology.  It  is  found 
upon  examination  that  the  Egyptian  names  in  these 
list.s  and  those  suspected  of  being  Egyptian  all  occur 
in  those  parts  of  the  genealogies  which  represent  the 
Egyptian  period  of  Israel's  history.  They  quickly 
disappear  after  the  Exodus  and  are  not  found  at  all 


TIMES  OF  THE  CONQUEST  257 

in  the  later  parts  of  the  Hsts,  while  there  come  in, 
according  to  the  same  natural  law,  names  with  Eastern 
affiliations  and  perhaps  also  Eastern  origin. 

Thus  the  genealogical  lists  necessarily  presuppose 
the  general  features  of  the  Pentateuchal  history.  Here 
are  manifest  effects  which  require  just  such  causes  as 
are  there  recorded.  If  the  things  there  related  did 
not  take  place,  something  very  like  them  did. 

III.    THE    TIMES   OF   THE    CONQUEST 

Have  we  now  come  to  the  conquest  period  or  have 
we  not?     Was  there  a  conquest?     At  this  point,  per- 
haps more  than  at  any  other,  the  Bible  narrative  and 
the  critical  theory  of  Israel's  history  join  issue.     Here 
a  stand  has  been  made  and  it  looks  as  if  a  decisive  battle 
must  be  fought  and  finished.     The  narrative  in  Joshua 
plainly  stands  for  a  conquest.     The  critical   theory 
repudiates  that  narrative,  breaks  it  up  into  fragments 
and  reconstructs  a  narrative  out  of  it  in  such  a  way  as 
to  give  a  very  different  view  of  the  history  of  that 
period,  so  that  instead  of  the  conquest  there  appears 
a  gradual  coming  in  and  intermingling  of  Israelites 
with  Canaanites  and  the  final  ascendency  of  the  Israel- 
ites at  a  much  later  period,  but  with  the  firm  and  final 
establishment  not  until  the  emergence  of  the  monarchy. 
Criticism  makes  a  resolute  stand  upon  the  position 
that  the  excavations  do  not  confirm  the  "P  document;" 
which  document,  it  is  said,  is  of  a  late  origin  variously 
estunated  from  the  time  of  the  Exile  until  some  time 
after. 

It  is  the  recent  excavation  work  in  Palestine  which 
has  brought  this  dispute  to  such  an  acute  stage.    For- 


258  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

merly  there  was  no  source  of  information  upon  this 
period  of  Israel's  history  except  the  book  of  Joshua. 
Now  there  is  appearing  a  kind  of  archaeological  book 
of  Joshua  to  be  laid  along  side  of  the  other.  The 
question  in  dispute  is,  Does  it  confirm  the  book  of 
Joshua  in  its  Biblical  form  or  the  reconstructed  Joshua 
of  the  critics?  and,  strange  to  say,  the  further  question, 
Does  it  establish  the  truth  of  the  one  it  confirms? 

Let  us  look  fairly  at  both  sides  of  the  controversy. 
What  state  of  things  in  Canaan  between  Israel  and  the 
Canaanites  does  the  Biblical  narrative  at  its  face  value 
demand  at  the  conquest  period,  and  what  does  this  new 
archaeological  book  of  Joshua  being  constructed  by  the 
excavators  evince  for  the  same  period  in  that  land?  We 
have  already  seen  that  the  Israelites  spoke  the  "lan- 
guage of  Canaan"  and  were  of  the  same  race  as  the 
dominant  element  in  the  land.  They  occupied  the 
vineyards  and  olive  orchards  and  the  "houses  full  of 
all  good  things."  They  had  the  same  material  for 
pottery  and  in  the  main  the  same  uses  for  it.^  They 
are  represented  to  have  fallen  into  many  customs  of 
the  Canaanites  and  to  have  intermarried,  though 
against  their  law,^  with  the  people  of  the  land.  Finally, 
they  did  not  drive  out  all  the  Canaanites,  as  they  were 
commanded  to  do,  but  made  alliances  with  many  of 
them  and  dwelt  together  with  them  in  joint  occupancy 
of  many  cities  and  communities,'  and  so  soon  fell, 
as  it.  was  said  they  would,  under  the  seduction  of 
Canaanite  idolatry.  After  the  days  of  Joshua,  they 
lapsed  very  much  into  the  Canaanite  religion  so  that 
it  was  not  until  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  and  the 
beginning  of  the  monarchy  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
emerged  for  a  time'  triumphant.     This  was  only,  as 


TIMES  OF  THE  CONQUEST  259 

we  know,  to  yield  again  in  later  times^  until  the  northern 
kingdom  perished  altogether  and  the  southern  kingdom 
was  finally  cured  of  idolatry  in  Babylon. 

Turning  now  to  the  results  of  the  excavations,-  we 
find  that  it  is  just  such  a  state  of  things  that  is  revealed 
by  them  at  the  same  period.  At  Gezer,  especially, 
the  layers  of  debris  are  most  clearly  apparent.  They 
are  definitely  marked  by  Egyptian  remains  and  by 
the  introduction  of  Hebrew  jar-handles.  There  is  mani- 
fested an  intermingling  of  populations  at  Gezer  at  this 
period  of  the  incoming  of  Israel.  A  joint  occupancy 
is  represented  as  in  the  sacred  narrative.  A  decline 
in  reverence  for  the  High  Place  is  manifested  by  the 
partial  occupancy  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  private 
dwellings.  The  coming  down  of  a  purer  religion  is  to 
be  noted  in  the  speedy  disappearance  of  the  horrible 
child-sacrifices  and  the  gradual  and  finally  complete 
introduction  of  the  beautiful  sjnnbolism'  of  the  bowl 
and  lamp  deposit  in  tombs. 

The  results  of  the  excavations,  as  far  as  they  have 
progressed,  show  at  this  period  exactly  the  kind  and 
extent  of  changes  demanded  by  the  Bible  narrative 
as  it  stands  in  the  book  of  Joshua.  This  might  seem 
at  once  to  settle  the  question  and  decide  against  the 
critical  view.  It  is  here  the  strange  issue  is  made  upon 
which  now  the  whole  conflict  at  this  point  must  be 
decided.  The  issue  is  this:  whether  or  not  the  agree- 
ment of  the  excavations  with  the  narrative  as  it  stands 
in  the  Bible,  if  made  out  beyond  all  question,  does 
after  all  vindicate  the  book  of  Joshua  in  its  present 
form.  The  advocates  of  the  critical  partition  of  the 
book  take  their  stand  upon  the  position  that  the  exca- 
vations do  not  confirm  the  ''P  document."     It  is  not 


260  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

necessary  to  go  into  a  detailed  description  and  illus- 
tration of  that  document.  It  is  frankly  admitted  that 
when  the  book  of  Joshua  is  broken  into  the  fragments 
produced  by  the  critical  hypothesis  and  according  to 
the  critical  criteria,  and  the  '*  P  document "  is  separated 
and  read  by  itself,  the  excavations  do  not  confirm  it. 
Its  advocates  then  ask  our  further  assent  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  narrative  in  Joshua  at  its  face  value 
is  by  this  discredited.  This  assumes  the  correctness 
of  the  critical  partition  of  Joshua,  which  is  the  real 
question  at  issue.  Indeed,  if  we  may  be  allowed  so 
harsh  an  expression,  it  begs  that  question.  It  puts 
the  facts  to  the  test  of  a  theory,  whereas  the  theory 
should  be  put  to  the  test  of  the  facts.  Let  us  ask  if 
there  is  anything  in  the  situation  created  by  the  critical 
partition  which  points  to  a  decision  of  this  real  question 
at  issue.  On  this  supposition  that  the  critical  partition 
is  correct,  what  then  shall  we  say  of  the  work  of  the 
final  redactor  who  put  together  these  various  documents 
so  as  to  make  up  the  book  of  Joshua  as  it  stands  in 
the  Bible?  How  does  it  come  that  he  so  put  together 
these  fragments  and  so  filled  up  the  gaps  that,  when 
more  than  twenty  five  hundred  years  later  this  old 
civilization  should  be  dug  up,  the  things  that  should 
remain  in  the  debris  of  ages  would  so  exactly  confirm 
this- fabricated  narrative  which  he  had  pieced  together 
out  of  such  inharmonious  fragments?  What  kind  of 
prevision  did  this  wonderful  Redactor  possess?  May 
we  expect  such  divine  gift  in  one  who  is  literally 
''making   history"? 

Will  it  not  seem  to  most  people  that  the  failure  of 
the  excavations  to  confirm  the  ''P  document,"  consider- 
ing all  these  circumstances  and  facts,  discredits  the 


MORAL  DESCENT  AT  THE  TIME  OF  THE  CONQUEST  261 

critical  partition  which  produced  the  ''P  document," 
rather  than  the  complete  narrative  in  Joshua  from 
which  this  part  of  the  ''P  document"  is  extracted? 
It  does  seem  that  a  calm  and  faithful  following  of  logical 
processes  leads  to  this  conclusion.  The  excavations 
in  Palestine  confirm  the  narrative  of  the  conquest  as 
it  stands  in  the  Bible.  They  do  also  substantiate  this 
completed  narrative  as  true  at  its  face  value. 

Two  questions,  or  we  might  say,  a  twofold  question, 
arises  at  this  point,  perhaps  second  in  interest  only  to 
the  Pentateuchal  question:  the  abrupt  descent  from 
the  high  plain  of  Pentateuchal  history,  doctrine,  and 
legislation  to  the  social,  moral,  political,  and  religious 
morass  of  the  days  of  the  Judges,  and  then  the  start- 
lingly  sudden  emergence  of  the  ecclesiastical  institu- 
tions and  establishment  and  the  splendors  of  empire 
of  the  Davidic  dynasty.  A  distinguished  professor 
in  one  of  our  great  theological  seminaries,  an  adherent 
of  the  current  critical  views,  in  a  recent  conversation 
on  the  critical  situation  was  asked,  "Have  you  ever 
read  over  the  Biblical  narrative  as  it  stands  in  the  Bible 
with  a  view  to  judging  of  its  naturalness  when  compared 
with  archaeological  facts?"  ''Yes,"  said  he,  ''and  it 
fits  exactly.  But  the  trouble  is  that  when  we  come  on 
down  among  the  people  of  the  time  of  the  Judges  they 
know  nothing  of  all  these  things."  On  the  other  hand, 
another,  of  very  conservative  views,  said  that  the 
problem  at  the  other  end  of  the  period  of  the  Judges 
when  the  glory  of  the  monarchy  flamed  up  so  suddenly 
is  to  him  equally  inexplicable.  These  are  the  two 
problems  and  they  are  certainly  real  problems.  Is  there 
any  solution? 

It  is  very  evident,  even  upon  a  cursory  reading  of  the 


262  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Pentateuchal  books,  that  they  record  chiefly  national 
doings  under  heroic  leadership,  and  the  revelation  of 
God  to  his  people,  the  nation,  and  through  them  to 
the  world.  Of  the  ordinary  life  of  the  common  people 
there  is  comparatively  little;  and  the  little  there  is,  is 
in  striking  contrast  with  the  instruction  set  before  the 
people.  There  is  account  of  the  pettishness  of  the 
people  ready  to  break  out  in  unreasonable  complain- 
ings at  the  first  occasion  and  upon  slight  provocation; 
the  religious  instability  of  the  people  ready  to  make  a 
golden  calf  to  take  them  back  to  Egypt  and  that  under 
the  very  shadow  of  Sinai  itself;  and  the  vileness  of  the 
people  after  forty  years  of  the  wilderness  training  still 
ready  to  defile  themselves  with  the  whoredoms  of  the 
Moabite  women.  In  short,  the  Pentateuch  is  a  record 
of  revelation  and  of  divinely  directed  leadership.  It 
is  ideal,  what  God  would  have  the  people  to  be  and  do, 
and  only  to  a  very  small  extent  sociological,  a  record  of 
what  the  people  were  and  did.  Has  any  one  supposed 
for  a  moment  that  the  people  were  like  the  Book?  In 
the  record  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  we  learn  what 
the  people  were  like.  The  records  of  that  period  are 
records  of  the  life  and  character  of  the  people  and  are 
of  a  piece  with  the  brief  records  of  life  in  the  Pentateuch 
above  mentioned.  Here  is  a  sharp  contrast  between 
precept  and  practice,  between  revelation  and  fife.  Here 
is  a  sociological  record  in  the  broadest  sense.  It  gives 
us  a  glimpse  of  the  trying  out  of  the  theocracy.  The 
contrast  between  the  idealism  of  the  books  of  the  Ipvv 
and  the  realism  of  this  sociological  record  is  dishearten- 
ing. But  is  it  surprising  or  strange?  Does  it  present 
any  real  perplexity  in  the  problems  of  national  progress? 
Is  it  any  more  disheartening  than  the  history  of  the 


MORAL  DESCENT  AT  THE  TIME  OF  THE  CONQUEST  263 

conflict  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  with  the  heathen- 
ism of  the  Roman  Empire  or  the  contrast  between 
the  preaching  of  the  missionaries  in  the  Celestial  Empire 
and  the  common  life  in  the  same  communities  of  China 
today?  Is  it  so  much  worse  than  the  contrast  between 
the  Book  in  America  and  England  in  this  XXth  century 
and  life  in  their  great  cities  when  iniquity  is  uncovered? 
Suppose,  even,  that  a  full  record  of  the  service  and  the 
sermon  on  a  single  Sabbath  in  a  Christian  church  was 
laid  side  by  side  with  an  exact  account  of  the  life 
lived  by  some  of  the  people.  Were  the  Elamites  as 
good  as  the  Code  of  Hammurabi?  Were  the  Athenians 
as  righteous  as  the  judgments  of  Solon?  Was  the 
Rome  of  Constantine  as  pious  as  his  confession  that 
made  the  Empire  Christian?  Is  Christendom  any- 
where in  the  world  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the 
world  to  be  compared  with  the  ideal  of  the  Book? 
Then  we  may  not  wonder  that  the  record  of  the  life 
of  the  people  after  the  conquest  fell  so  far  below  the 
ideal  set  before  them  in  the  Pentateuch.  If  the  Chris- 
tian world  in  twenty  centuries  has  gotten  no  further  on 
in  applied  Christianity  than  appears  today,  if  the  push- 
ing of  the  idea  of  applied  Christianity  to  the  front  did 
not  come  until  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  of 
the  Christian  era,  shall  we  wonder  that  it  took  Israel 
four  centuries  in  the  promised  land  to  so  work  out 
her  destiny  under  the  influence  of  revelation  as  that 
her  ecclesiastical  institutions  and  her  national  spirit 
should  emerge  above  the  fogs  of  social,  moral,  political, 
and  religious  miasma?  Shall  we  not  rather  wonder  at 
the  emergence  so  soon?  Indeed,  this  is  the  greater  of 
the  two  problems.  Its  very  greatness  helps  to  solve 
the  other.     For  the  sudden  emergence  of  the  culture 


264  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

of  the  times  of  the  monarchy  in  the  Bible  record  indicates 
that  there  was  in  reality  no  great  moral  descent  from 
the  wilderness  life  to  the  period  of  the  Judges,  much 
less  that  there  is  an  impossible  situation  in  the  con- 
trast between  the  Pentateuchal  books  and  the  subse- 
quent Palestinian  life,  but  that  rather  there  was  the 
same  contrast  between  the  teaching  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  life  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness,  as  appears 
immediately  afterward  in  Canaan,  and  that  the  emer- 
gence in  the  times  of  the  Monarchy  marks  the  first 
national  attainment  to  so  high  a  point  under  the  power 
of  revelation.  That  the  emergence  did  come  is  undis- 
puted. What  goes  before  must  be  interpreted  in 
accordance  with  that  fact.  The  only  ultimate  and 
conclusive  explanation  is  that  given  by  Professor  George 
Adam  Smith  for  the  change  in  religious  culture  of 
Canaan  which  took  place  at  the  conquest  as  mani- 
fested in  the  excavations  at  Gezer:  ''Surely  it  is  only 
the  inspiration  of  the  Most  High."  Only  the  Pentateuch 
in  the  wilderness  can  account  for  the  emergence,  within 
four  hundred  years,  of  the  religious  establishment  and 
the  imperial  glory  of  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon. 
If  mere  heathenism  could  develop  into  such  high  moral 
and  religious  ideas  and  life,  why  has  it  never  done  so 
elsewhere?  Three  millenniums  of  Jewish  life  since  that 
time  give  no  ground  for  belief  in  such  racial  distinction 
morally  and  spiritually  as  that  there  should  be  such 
unaided  development  among  the  people  of  Israel. 

Yet  there  are  some  things  which  help  us  to  under- 
stand the  progress  which  prepared  for  the  emergence. 
During  all  the  four  centuries  of  the  moral  and  social 
marsh-life  of  Israel,  the  Book  was  in  existence,  but  only 
in  a  written  copy  or  at  most  a  few  written  copies. 


SUDDEN  EMERGENCE  OF  THE  MONARCHY     265 

The  tabernacle  was  at  Shiloh,  however  much  neglected 
by  the  people.  Jeremiah  and  the  people  to  whom  he 
spoke  knew  that  the  history  of  Shiloh  and  its  tabernacle, 
the  only  history  it  had,  was  a  real  piece  of  history  when 
he  used  it  as  a  terrible  warning  to  Jerusalem.  So 
during  these  four  centuries  the  people  were  learning 
something  of  the  priesthood  and  the  ritual  and  the 
ministry  of  prophecy.  ^  Here  and  there  arose  a 
Gideon,  a  Naomi,  a  Boaz,  and  at  last  a  Samuel.  A 
national  spirit  and  a  political  life  were  developing; 
at  intervals  the  people  roused  themselves,  threw  off 
their  apathy  and  with  it  their  yoke,  and  at  last  in  the 
providence  of  God  has  come  one  of  those  times  that 
a,re  ready  for  a  7nan.  And  the  man  arose.  There  came 
a  Menes  in  Egypt,  though  there  were  kings  of  a  sort 
before  Menes.  There  was  a  Romulus  at  Rome,  for 
whatever  legendary  accretions  the  story  may  have 
acquired,  there  was  a  real  emergence  of  the  Roman 
monarchy.  There  came  an  Alfred  the  Great  in  Eng- 
land, who  so  far  eclipsed  his  predecessors  that  the 
English  nation  seems  almost  to  proceed  from  him. 
And  at  another  crisis  in  Anglo-Saxon  liberty  there 
came  a  Washington  in  America.  So  in  the  fullness  of 
time,  yet  suddenly  and  startlingly  for  all  that,  there 
came  a  Saul  and  then  a  David  and  a  Solomon  in  Israel. 
It  is  the  way  of  God's  law  and  God's  providence  in 
this  world.  There  is  a  long  period  of  gestation  and 
than  a  birth.  Not  a  mere  infinitesimal  step  forward 
in  the  evolution,  but  an  event.  The  birth  of  an  idea, 
the  birth  of  an  individual,  the  birth  of  a  nation,  the 
birth  of  a  religion  is  always  an  event.  ''A  nation 
shall  be  born  in  a  day."  To  whatever  a  nation  is  born, 
it  is  always  born  thus.     A  birth  is  a  breaking  forth. 


266  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

So  holding  up  our  two  problems  to  the  mirror  of 
history  the  problem  of  the  abrupt  descent  to  the  Judges 
and  the  problem  of  the  sudden  emergence  at  the  Mon- 
archy, we  see  their  reflection  in  a  thousand  places. 
It  does  not  take  away  the  mystery  of  the  problems  to 
see  them  thus  duplicated  so  many  times.  But  it  does 
take  away  any  suspicion  of  unreality  from  the  Bible 
narrative  that  contains  them. 

IV.    THE  POLITICAL  HORIZON 

We  turn  now  from  Israel's  internal  conflict  with 
the  people  of  the  land  to  scan  her  political  horizon. 
The  age-long  struggle  between  the  inhabitants  of  the 
valley  of  the  Great  River  and  the  people  of  the  valley 
of  the  Nile  was  ever  a  menace  on  the  horizon  of  Israel's 
political  history  from  the  conquest  to  the  final  dis- 
persion of  the  Israelite  nations  among  their  enemies. 
The  affairs  of  the  people  of  Israel  during  this  period 
are,  for  the  most  part,  important  only  because  of 
their  relation  to  the  revelation  of  God  to  men  and  the 
working  out  of  the  plan  of  salvation  for  the  world. 
The  constant  recognition  of  this  fact  in  the  study  of 
the  narrative  in  the  Bible  is  necessary  in  order  to  put 
the  Bible  account  of  events  in  their  true  light.  The 
great  importance  they  are  given  is  usually  in  this  one 
respect.  Because  it  is  so,  great  world-events  some- 
times are  not  given  even  passing  notice,  while  affairs 
that  are  but  trivial  in  the  world-arena  are  set  forth 
in  great  detail.  These,  so  unimportant  in  themselves, 
have  to  do  with  the  greatest  subject  in  the  world,  the 
redemption  of  man.  Considered  simply  as  world- 
history,  the  affairs  of  the  monarchy  and  of  the  divided 


POLITICAL  horizon:    EGYPT  267 

monarchy  are  trivial  indeed,  if  we  except  perhaps,  the 
brief  period  in  the  monarchy  from  the  reign  of  David 
over  all  Israel  to  the  accession  of  Rehoboam. 

Palestinian  sovereignty  during  all  the  rest  of  this 
long  period  of  Israel's  national  life  was  like  a  football 
tossed  by  the  eastern  and  the  western  contestants  now 
toward  one  goal  and  now  toward  the  other.  Israel's 
part  in  this  great  struggle  is  one  of  the  most  pathetic 
pieces  of  international  history  the  whole  world  has 
produced.  Rightly  to  adjust  ourselves  between  Israel's 
transcendent  importance  as  the  depositary  of  revelation 
and  the  channel  of  the  world's  hope  of  salvation  and 
Israel's  international  insignificance  and  the  oft-repeated 
humiliation  of  her  sovereignty  as  the  football  of  em- 
pires, is  the  great  problem  of  the  comparison  between 
Bible  history  and  archaeological  results  for  this  period 
in  Bible  lands. 

1.  Egypt.  On  the  western  horizon  of  Israel  ever 
hovered  the  Hawk  of  Egypt  before  which  the  people 
of  the  Promised  land  were  always  as  partridges  on  the 
mountains.  The  Hawk  ever  hung  aloft  watching  her 
opportunity  from  the  earliest  partiarchal  days  down 
over  the  conquest  and  the  period  of  the  kings  until 
the  Persian  finally  frightened  her  back  never  more  to 
leave  the  shade  of  her  palm-groves  by  the  side  of  the 
Nile.  Palestine  was,  for  long,  a  province  of  Egypt. 
Indeed,  Egypt  always  claimed  her  as  such  by  right  and 
ceased  not  to  push  that  claim  to  the  front  at  every 
favorable  opportunity.  On  one  spot,  at  least,  the 
old  city  of  Gezer,  she  always  kept  a  hold,  if  no  more, 
at  times,  than  a  diplomatic  hold.  Her  presence  and 
great  influence  here  is  manifest  by  the  great  abundance 
of  scarabs  of  all  ages  from  the  Xllth  dynasty  onward. 


268  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Probably  some  insight  into  the  underlying  causes  in 
the  time  of  Joshua  is  afforded  by  this  evident  influence 
of  Egypt  at  Gezer.  It  is  recorded  in  Judges,  ^  of  this 
period  of  the  time  of  Joshua,  that  '^  Neither  did  Ephraim 
drive  out  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  Gezer;  but 
the  Canaanites  dwelt  in  Gezer  among  them."  One 
reason  for  this  may  have  been  the  fear  of  the  resis- 
tance of  Egypt  at  this  point.  The  sacred  writers  still 
pursue  their  purpose  to  write  religious  history  rather 
than  world  history,  so  that  we  hear  nothing  more  of 
Egypt  at  Gezer  until  the  days  of  Solomon.  By  a 
diplomatic  marriage  the  great  king  got,^  as  a  dower 
with  an  Egyptian  wife,  this  old  city  of  Gezer.  Two 
things  are  made  plain  by  this  transaction :  Egypt  made 
good  her  claim  to  the  city,  and  Solomon  acknowledged 
the  claim.  As  already  fully  shown,  the  theory  of  the 
"desert  Egypt"^  in  the  northern  Paran  finds  not  a 
trace  of  confirmation  at  Gezer,  where  certainly  such 
traces  ought  to  appear  if  Gezer  were  a  part  of  the  do- 
main of  the  king  of  that  region.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  real  Egypt  is  represented  throughout  this 
period  by  abundant  remains  at  this  old  Canaanite  city. 
Now  for  a  few  years  the  relative  greatness  of  Pales- 
tine in  world  affairs,  as  made  known  by  the  history  of 
the-  world  empires  of  that  day,  was  almost  equal  to 
the  isolated  grandeur  as  depository  of  the  world's 
redemption  in  which  she  appears  in  the  sacred  record 
of  the  imperial  reign  of  Solomon.  There  was  quietness 
along  both  the  Nile  and  the  Euphrates.  The  sover- 
eignty of  Palestine  was  allowed  to  repose  in  peace 
and  strength  at  Jerusalem  undisturbed.  For  about  a 
quarter  of  a  century  the  glorious  vision  of  the  complete 
possession  of  the  promised  land  was  fulfilled. 


POLITICAL  horizon:    EGYPT  269 

But  Egypt,  though  quiescent,  was  not  asleep  nor 
content.  Jeroboam  knew  where  to  go  when  he  wished 
to  find  refuge  and  he  was  not  disappointed.  Shishak 
gave  him  shelter.  At  a  later  period  Jeroboam  became 
openly  an  insurrectionist  and  then  led  the  rebellion 
at  the  rupture  of  the  kingdom.^  Whether  or  not  he 
appealed  to  Shishak  for  help,  we  do  not  know.  He 
might  naturally  think  he  could  expect  help  from  Egypt, 
but  the  Pharaoh  was  thinking  not  of  Jeroboam  but  of 
the  selfish  reason  for  which  he  had  given  refuge  to 
Solomon's  rebellious  and  dangerous  subject.  Shishak 
came  up  with  his  great  army  and  helped  .... 
himself.  The  list  of  despoiled  Palestinian  cities  which 
Shishak  has  left  on  the  south  wall  of  the  temple  at 
Karnak  shows  that  he  ravaged  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
about  as  much  as  the  kingdom  of  Judah.^  The  momen- 
tous event  of  this  campaign,  however,  was  the  capture 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  robbing  of  the  Temple  only  about 
twenty-five  years  after  it  was  completed  and  furnished.^ 
Thus  the  ancient  claim  of  the  right  of  Egypt  to  reign 
over  Palestine  was  once  more  asserted,  and  the  brief 
period  of  Palestine's  international  greatness  was  at  an 
end.  BibUcal  references  to  these  international  events 
are  very  brief  (for  the  main  purpose  of  the  Bible  is 
often  not  concerned  with  either  international  greatness 
or  insignificance)  but  they  are  plain  enough  and  they 
are  exactly  confirmed  by  the  records  of  Egypt. 

No  exception  to  this  statement  needs  to  be  made 
because  of  the  mention  of  the  "field  of  Abram"'*  by 
Shishak  at  Karnak.  The  advocates  of  the  reconstruc- 
tive criticism  have  been  pointing^  to  this  as  the  first 
mention  of  the  name  "Abram"  outside  of  the  Bible, 
and  claiming  in  their  favor  a  presumption  that  the 


270  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

name  was  not  known  much  before  this  time  of  Shishak 
and  that  the  personahty  of  Abraham  as  it  appears  in 
the  patriarchal  narrative  is  only  a  reflection  back  from 
these  times.  The  name  of  Abraham  would  be  most 
welcome  in  the  inscription  of  Shishak  or  in  any  other 
inscription  earlier  or  later.  The  triviality  of  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case  which  critics  may  be  able  to  find 
in  the  mere  absence  of  other  mention  of  the  name  in 
discoveries  to  this  present  time  hardly  needs  comment 
here,  for  the  reason  that  the  reading  ''field  of  Abram" 
is  all  but  impossible;  some  of  the  ablest  Egyptolo- 
gists say  entirely  impossible.^  This  alleged  ''field  of 
Abram,"  with  the  critical  inference  from  it,  and  the 
hypothetical  "desert  Egypt"  are  the  only  shadows  of 
archaeological  evidence  which  have  yet  appeared  to 
challenge  the  Biblical  narrative  for  this  national  period 
of  the  history  of  Israel,  and  they  are  no  more  than 
shadows. 

From  this  time  on,  events  on  the  western  horizon 
of  Israel's  national  history  followed  the  inevitable 
course,  sometimes  in  very  rapid  succession.  The  paral- 
lelism of  the  sacred  story  and  the  "tale  of  the  potsherds" 
is  accepted  by  nearly  all  scholars.  A  very  rapid  survey 
of  this  part  of  the  political  horizon  of  Israel  from  this 
point  to  the  end  of  the  period  will  suffice. 

Now  began  in  deadly  earnest  the  struggle  between 
the  East  and  the  West,  between  the  Euphrates  and 
the  Nile.  Egypt  was  in  possession  of  the  suzerainty 
of  Palestine,  but  the  growing  Assyrian  power  would 
not  long  leave  her  in  peaceful  and  undisputed  enjoy- 
ment of  it.  Hezekiah  was  driven  to  great  straits  by 
the  threatenings  of  Sennacherib,^  and  sought  safety 
through  an  alliance,  with  Tirhaka  of  Egypt,  and  still 


POLITICAL  horizon:   EGYPT  271 

more  through  rehance  upon  Jehovah  and  intercession 
by  the  prophet  Isaiah.  Tirhaka  sallied  forth  to  attack 
the  Assyrian  who  left  the  siege  of  Lachish  to  meet 
his  enemy  at  the  border  of  Egypt.  Secular  historians 
unite  with  the  sacred  narrative  in  attributing  Sen- 
nacherib's overthrow  to  the  sudden  death  of  185,000 
of  his  army."^  The  Bible  says  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
accomplished  this  defeat,  but  does  not  tell  us  what 
agent  was  used  by  the  angel  or  what  was  the  appear- 
ance of  death  among  those  men.  Berosus,  quoted  by 
Josephus,  says  that  it  was  a  pestilence.  No  account  of 
this  disaster  has  yet  been  found  in  the  Egyptian  inscrip- 
tions. But  they  confirm  the  Biblical  description  of 
Tirhaka  as  king  of  Ethiopia.  The  Ethiopian  king  had 
taken  the  Egyptian  throne,  and  so  was  primarily  "king 
of  Ethiopia,"  as  he  is  called  in  the  Bible. 

The  next  pivotal  point  in  the  relation  between  Pales- 
tine and  Egypt  is  where  the  great  Necho  first  went 
out  in  his  vain  hope  of  putting  an  end  to  the  ever- 
increasing  menace  of  the  Assyrian  power.  Josiah,  with 
much  foolhardiness  and  against  the  kindly  and  pathetic 
appeal  of  Necho  for  peaceful  continuance  of  their 
existing  relations,  compelled  the  Pharaoh  to  fight  at 
Megiddo.  Josiah  was  slain.  Necho  went  on  in  pur- 
suit of  his  original  purpose  for  the  time.  His  campaign 
was  a  disappointment.  The  Assyrian  army  did  not 
give  him  decisive  battle.  On  his  return  toward  Egypt, 
he  visited  Jerusalem,  deposed  the  new  king  Jehoahaz, 
made  Eliakim  king,  and  changed  his  name  to  Jehoiakim, 
and  carried  Jehoahaz  captive  to  Egypt.  The  Egyptian 
vassalage  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  thus  the  more 
firmly  established. 


272  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONXIMENTS 

The  Assyro-Babylonian  power  grew  greater  and 
greater.  Again  Necho  advanced  threateningly  to  the 
Euphrates.  This  time  he  was  not  disappointed  in  the 
hope  of  meeting  his  great  foe,  but  utterly  disappointed 
in  the  hope  of  overthrowing  him.  Nebuchadnezzar, 
the  Babylonian,  had  come  to  the  throne.  He  met 
Necho  near  the  Euphrates,  and  the  battle  of  Car- 
chemish  proved  to  be  the  Waterloo  of  Egypt.  With 
the  victory  of  Carchemish  went  naturally  the  suzerainty 
of  Palestine.  Jerusalem  fell  easily  before  the  power  of 
the  Great  King.  Only  once  more  did  Egypt  make 
serious  attempt  to  possess  herself  of  the  coveted  Pales- 
tinian prize,  which  had  thus  passed  to  the  Babylonian 
crown.  It  was  when  Pharaoh  Hophra,  at  the  second 
taking  of  Jerusalem,  made  his  disastrous  attempt  to 
succor  the  city  by  attacking  the  besieging  army  of 
Nebuchadnezzer.     He  was  utterly  crushed. 

At  this  time  Jeremiah,  carried  away  with  those  who 
fled  from  Jerusalem  to  Hophra^  for  refuge,  still  hurl- 
ing his  threatenings  against  Judah  for  trusting  in  this 
broken  reed  instead  of  trusting  in  Jehovah,  enacted 
his  dramatic  prophecy  in  the  "brickwork"  in  front  of 
the  palace  gate  at  Tahpanhes.  The  account  of  this 
event  has  been  almost  as  dramatically  vindicated  by 
Petrie's  discovery  in  the  ruins  of  the  palace.^  ''Pave- 
ments" had  been  unknown  in  Egyptian  ruins  or  rather 
the  real  character  of  such  a  "pavement"  misunderstood. 
Was  it  likely  that  there  was  one  here?  The  palace 
was  uncovered  and,  lo!  the  "pavement,"  a  slightly 
raised  platform  of  "brickwork"  exactly  where  the 
prophet  had  said.  As  the  "mortar"'  in  which  the 
bricks  at  Pithom  were  laid,  an  uncommon  thing  in 
Egyptian  ruins,  so  this  "pavement,"  also,  points  to 


POLITICAL  horizon:  philistia  273 

the  remarkable  accuracy  of  the  sacred  writings  even 
when  they  contradict  what  is  thought  to  be  well-known 
and  established. 

The  Bible  presents  Israel's  history  in  its  relation 
to  God's  providence,  the  monuments  in  its  relation 
to  pohtical  influences  and  other  natural  causes.  The 
Bible  and  the  monuments  present,  for  all  this  period  of 
Israel's  national  life,  just  such  differing  views  and 
complementary  statements  as  any  such  dual  treatment 
of  a  subject  must  always  produce.  Thus  the  Scripture 
representations  of  Egypt's  part  in  the  great  inter- 
national struggle  for  the  suzerainty  of  Palestine  exactly 
accord  with  all  the  knowledge  we  have  on  the  subject 
from  Egyptian  sources  at  the  present  time. 

Between  Egypt  and  Babylonia  lay  three  parts  of 
Israel's  international  political  horizon,  now  to  be  noted, 
of  lesser  importance  and  of  which  far  less  is  known. 

2.  Philistia.  Along  the  Mediterranean  border  there 
stretched  the  Philistines,  who  so  asserted  themselves 
after  the  conquest  that  they  reduced  all  Israel  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges  and  the  beginning  of  the  Monarchy 
to  a  state  of  abject  terror,  and  drove  many  to  caves 
and  holes  in  the  mountains.^  They  disarmed  the 
nation,  even  took  away  the  smithies^  that  they  might 
not  make  arms  for  themselves,  yet  seem  never  to  have 
estabhshed  any  government  among  the  Israelites.  The 
Phihstines  are  still  today  as  great  a  mystery  as  were 
the  Hittites  a  few  years  ago.  The  occasional  probable 
mention  of  them  in  inscriptions,  with  the  possible  dis- 
covery of  some  of  their  tombs  at  Gezer,^  though  with 
nothing  distinctive  in  them,  is  all  that  is  known  of 
this  people  aside  from  the  Scripture  narrative.  The 
strange  story  of  their  power  is  not  yet  corroborated. 


274  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

but,  calling  to  mind  the  recent  Hittite  discoveries,  he 
would  be  a  venturesome  critic,  indeed,  who  should 
presume  to  discredit  the  Bible  story  because  of  the 
absence  of  any  other  information  concerning  this  re- 
markable people. 

3.  Moab.  Along  the  eastern  border  of  the  Jordan 
lay  Moab.  From  this  quarter  of  the  horizon  of  Israel's 
history  comes  the  Moabite  stone,  one  of  the  greatest 
contributions  which  archaeology  has  made  to  Biblical 
science.  Neither  from  this  monument  nor  from  any 
other  source  is  there  much  of  political  importance  from 
this  part  of  the  horizon.  The  Moabite  stone  sheds 
some  hght  upon  the  relations  between  Mesha  king  of 
Moab  and  the  house  of  Omri  of  the  northern  kingdom 
of  Israel.  There  are  some  things  in  the  statements 
of  Mesha  on  the  monument^  which  at  first  sight  seem 
to  contradict  the  Biblical  narrative.  They  are  not, 
however,  impossible  as  merely  supplementary  state- 
ments of  fact.  Facts  are  ofttimes  very  antagonistic 
and  may  be  actively  at  war  with  each  other.  In  this 
they  only  reflect  the  attitude  of  the  persons  who  enact 
them..  But  if  they  be  really  facts,  there  is  room  for 
them  all.  They  do  not  shove  each  other  off  the  face 
of  the  earth  nor  out  of  a  rightful  place  in  history.  Even 
if  the  statements  of  Mesha  and  of  the  author  of  the 
book  of  Second  Kings  be  found  in  this  case  to  be  posi- 
tively contradictory,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Bible 
account  is  descredited.  It  would  become,  then,  a 
question  of  veracity  which  must  be  decided  upon  suf- 
ficient evidence  from  both  sides. 

The  great  value  of  the  Moabite  stone  is  of  a  very 
different  kind  from  the  value  of  information  concerning 
international  politics..    For  one  thing,  it  contains  the 


POLITICAL  horizon:  moab  275 

first  reference  from  external  sources  to  Jehovah  wor- 
shipi  in  the  rehgion  of  Israel.  The  silence  of  the 
monuments  to  this  time  on  this  subject  has  no  special 
significance,  as  they  do  not  seem  to  have  had  special 
occasion  to  mention  Israel's  God.  The  positive  state- 
ment of  Mesha  is  of  great  importance.  It  indicates 
that  which  also  appears  in  Scripture — but  which,  by 
reason  of  the  persistent  condemnation  of  Israel's  lapses 
into  idolatry,  is  apt  to  be  overlooked — that,  despite 
the  iniquity  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  who  made 
Israel  to  sink,  and  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  who 
came  after  him  and  who  walked  in  his  footsteps,  even 
to  Ahab  who  ''did  worse  than  them  all,"  still,  in  the 
time  of  Mesha  Jehovah  was  distinctively  the  ''God  of 
Israel." 

That  value  of  the  Moabite  stone  which  transcends 
all  other,  however,  is  its  epigraphic  value.  ^  It  has 
furnished  for  nearly  half  a  century  the  best  and  the 
most,  if  not  also  the  earliest,  evidence  concerning  the 
system  of  writing  in  vogue  among  the  Hebrews  for 
their  own  language.  The  data  it  supplied  was  com- 
plete, the  information  it  gave  and  the  direction  it 
indicated  in  epigraphic  research  correct.  Its  excellent 
and  well-developed  alphabet  being  superior  in  that 
most  important  combination  of  legibility  and  simplicity 
to  any  even  of  the  so-called  scientific  alphabets  of  today, 
it  has  seemed  to  many  to  point  to  a  literary  develop- 
ment that  might  well  reach  back  over  the  whole  period 
of  Israel's  national  life  to  the  Exodus  itself.  Later 
discovery  of  the  Siloam  inscription,  the  Gezer  Calendar 
tablet,  and  other  fragments  of  lesser  importance,  while 
not  certainly  adding  much,  if  anything,  to  the  evidence 
furnished  by  the  Moabite  stone,  do  uniformly  serve 


276  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

to  strengthen  and  confirm  this  forecast  of  information 
on  the  literary  character  of  the  preceding  age. 

These  facts,  together  with  the  direction  in  which 
they  point,  are  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  hterary 
criticism  not  only  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  but 
of  all  the  historical  books  down  to  the  time  of  Mesha. 
They  do  not  disprove  the  critical  view  which  places 
most  or  all  of  this  Biblical  literature  after  this  date, 
but  they  do  take  away  the  rear  defense  of  that  view. 
For  as  long  as  there  were  no  indications  of  the  literary 
character  of  this  age,  it  was  possible  to  theorize  against 
it  with  much  plausibility,  and  impossible  to  defend 
decisively  an  earlier  date  for  the  historical  books  or 
urge  with  conclusiveness  the  possibility  of  the  trans- 
mission of  the  Pentateuch  over  this  literary  terra 
incognita.  So,  while  the  theory  of  the  late  origin  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet  was  not  necessary  to  the  late  view  of 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  was  very  converiient 
as  a  rear  defense  of  that  view.  It  is  this  defense  that 
is  now  being  so  badly  broken  down  and,  indeed,  alto- 
gether removed. 

The  confident  beUef  of  the  people  in  Josiah's  day 
that  the  preceding  age  back  to  the  time  of  their  national 
hero  Moses  had  been  a  literary  age,  as  manifested  by 
their  readiness  to  receive  the  book  ''found"  as  from  the 
great  lawgiver,  is  in  exact  accord  with  these  indications 
from  the  results  of  archaeological  research.  The  seem- 
ingly impossible  obstacle  to  the  traditional  view  of  the 
date  of  the  book  "found"  is  taken  away.  It  is  not  only 
possible  but  essentially  probable  that  a  literary  age 
would  have  produced  some  religious  literature.  The 
defense  of  the  early  date  for  all  these  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture which  purport  to  have  come  from  an  early  time 


POLITICAL  horizon:   ASSYRIA  277 

is  made  much  easier,  and  the  advocacy  of  a  later 
authorship  has  lost  its  most  comfortable  and  convenient 
shelter.  Here  at  this  point  in  the  discussion  both 
criticism  and  archaeology  await  further  discoveries. 

4.  Syria.  The  third  and  last  of  these  sections  of 
Israel's  horizon,  of  lesser  importance,  lying  between 
Egypt  and  Assyria,  is  the  southern  kingdom  of  Syria, 
with  capital  at  Damascus.  These  Syrians,  Israel's 
immediate  neighbors  to  the  northeast,  were  ''kin  by 
blood,  rivals  in  politics,  diverse  in  worship."  Israel 
and  Syria  were  small  neighbors  in  the  world  of  nations 
usually  standing  together  against  their  common  great 
enemies  from  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile,  and,  like 
small  neighbors,  often  quarreling  between  themselves 
when  not  threatened  by  greater  foes. 

The  account  of  these  fluctuating  political  relations 
is  most  interesting  both  in  the  Bible  record  and  in  the 
results  of  archaeological  research.  It  illustrates  many 
things  in  the  Bible  narrative  and  furnishes  much  mate- 
rial for  exegetical  work  and  for  the  pulpit,  but  little 
that  bears  upon  the  critical  questions  of  the  day,  much 
less  helps  to  determine  them.  So,  it  furnishes  nothing 
that  need  be  given  a  place  in  this  glance  at  the  progress 
of  archaeology  in  testing  the  Biblical  narrative  and 
settling  questions  raised  by  criticism. 

5.  Assyria.  We  lift  up  our  eyes  now  toward  that 
whole  great  segment  of  Israel's  political  horizon  which 
lies  toward  the  Euphrates.  Besides  the  comparatively 
unimportant  relations  of  Israel  with  Syria  at  which 
we  have  glanced,  there  lay  far  beyond  this  the  supremely 
important  relations  of  Israel  with  Assyria  and  with 
Babylonia.  There  is  generally  unanimity  concerning 
the  facts  of  Israel's  history  on  this  quarter  of  the 


278  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

horizon  and  the  agreement  of  these  facts  as  brought 
to  light  by  research  with  the  statement  of  the  facts 
in  the  Bible  account.  It  is  only,  for  the  most  part, 
when  the  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  the  literary 
questions  of  Scripture  comes  under  consideration  that 
scholars  part  company,  the  advocates  of  the  recon- 
structive theory  insisting  that  archaeology  harmonizes 
with  their  views  and  those  who  oppose  that  theory 
and  hold  to  the  view  of  Israel's  history  presented  by 
the  Bible  narrative  as  a  finished  product  believing  not 
only  that  archaeological  results  do  not  contradict  their 
view  and  do  harmonize  with  it  in  the  general  way 
claimed  by  their  opponents  for  their  own  view,  but 
also  that  they  give  it  positive  support. 

Let  us  take  a  rapid  survey  of  the  facts  as  generally 
received  by  all.  Many  of  them  have  already  neces- 
sarily come  into  view  in  considering  Israel's  relation 
to  Assyria's  great  enemy,  Egypt. 

Shalmaneser  II  put  Jehu  to  tribute.^  This  was 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  northern  kingdom. 
The  Scripture  narrative,  from  its  characteristic  view- 
point, dwells  upon  the  relation  of  Israel's  troubles  to 
Israel's  sin,  and  gives  no  definite  account  of  this  event, 
while  Shalmaneser,  also  characteristically,  poitrays  the 
long  line  of  those  who  bear  the  rich  booty  which  he 
had  received  from  the  capital  at  Samaria.  Somewhat 
later,  the  Assyrian  scepter  displaced  that  of  Israel 
altogether  and  itself  passed,  in  the  very  midst  of  the 
final  conflict  at  Samaria,  from  the  hand  of  Shalmaneser 
IV  to  the  hand  of  Sargon  II  as  the  northern  kingdom 
disappeared  forever  from  all  history  sacred  or  profane. 

Soon  after  the  fall  of  Samaria,  Sennacherib  is  knock- 
ing at  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  when  the  approach  of 


POLITICAL  horizon:  BABYLONIA  279 

Hezekiah's  ally,  Tirhaka,  summons  him  to  meet  his 
great  enemy,  Egypt.  He  responds  and  meets  in  addition 
his  greater  enemy,  the  angel  of  Hezekiah's  God.  In 
one  night  the  "185,000"  of  his  army  perished. ^ 

This  crushing  disaster  to  Sennacherib  followed  by 
internal  dissensions  at  the  Assyrian  capital  accords 
with  the  time  of  peace  and  prosperity  at  Jerusalem, 
of  which  the  Bible  tells  us,^  and  which  came  to  an  end 
when  Josiah  foolishly  struck  at  the  passing  host  of 
Necho  on  its  way  to  renew  the  great  struggle  with 
the  East  for  supremacy. ^  Upon  Necho's  return  from 
his  inconclusive  campaign,  he  strangled  as  we  have 
seen,  the  Judean  sovereignty  and  left  but  a  gasping, 
half-lifeless  body,  a  mere  semblance  of  the  former 
dignity  and  greatness  of  royalty  there.^ 

6.  Babylonia.  Then  came  that  final  struggle  be- 
tween East  and  West  for  Palestine,  with  Necho  leading 
Egypt  and  the  Neo-Babylonian  Nebuchadnezzar  at 
the  head  of  the  Assyro-Babylonian  empire.  At  Car- 
chemish,  Jerusalem  passed  forever  from  Egyptian 
vassalage,  struggled  at  first  against  Babylonian  sover- 
eignty, and  then  expired  amidst  blood  and  ashes.^ 

Few  of  the  facts  of  this  long  historical  period  of 
Israel's  national  life,  which  archaeology  has  made  known 
to  us  so  clearly,  touch  points  of  serious  controversy  in 
criticism,  but  everywhere  the  meaning  of  the  Biblical 
history  is  made  out  in  the  light  of  the  world's  history 
by  the  wonderful  results  of  a  century  of  archaeological 
research.  One  hundred  years  ago,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  corroborative  statements  by  classical  historians, 
this  part  of  the  Bible  history  stood  absolutely  unsup- 
ported. Today,  after  a  century  of  testing  at  a  hundred 
points,  practically  this  whole  historical  field  has  been 
proved  up. 


280  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

V.    PROPHETIC  HISTORY  AND  LITERATURE 

Archaeological  evidence  concerning  the  great  struggle 
between  the  East  and  the  West  for  Palestine  has  to 
do  with  the  conditions  reflected  in  the  historical  books 
of  the  Bible;  that  concerning  the  exiles  has  to  do  with 
the  conditions  reflected  in  prophecy,  Jonah  and  Nahum 
for  Nineveh,  Isaiah  and  Daniel  for  Babylon,  Ezekiel, 
Jeremiah,  Haggai  and  Malachi  for  the  return  and  the 
rehabilitation.  Archaeological  discoveries  have  been 
very  numerous  and  of  great  value  in  almost  all  lands 
and  at  every  period  of  history  covered  by  these  prophe- 
cies, but  that  value  has  been  chiefly  hermeneutical. 
A  flood  of  light  is  let  in  upon  the  imagery  of  Bible 
diction  from  the  revelations  archaeology  has  afforded 
concerning  the  institutions,  laws,  manners  and  customs, 
flora  and  fauna,  industry,  commerce  and  wars  of  this 
period.  All  this  helps  to  complete  the  sacred  picture 
of  life  which  has  been  blurred  by  the  forgetfulness  of 
time,  and  also,  in  a  general  way,  gives  confirmation 
of  the  correctness  of  the  sacred  story. 

But,  of  special  apologetic  value,  archaeological  results 
have  as  yet  for  this  long  prophetic  period  yielded 
comparatively  little.  There  are  but  a  few  instances 
in  which  the  discoveries  of  archaeology  have  illuminated 
the  questions  which  are  of  special  interest  in  the  critical 
controversies  of  the  day.  Very  much  has  become 
known  of  the  life,  and  especially  the  royal  life,  of  Nine- 
veh, ^  yet  very  little  that  has  any  bearing  upon  the 
critical  questions  so  much  kept  to  the  front  concerning 
its  prophet  Jonah  and  his  "prophecy.  There  is  some 
light  upon  the  fish-god^  of  the  Babylonian  coast,  believ- 
ed to  come  out  upon  the  land  and  instruct  men,  which 


PROPHETIC  HISTORY  AND   LITERATURE  281 

may  afford  some  explanation  of  the  form  of  Jonah's 
deliverance  by  which  was  shown  Jehovah's  power  over 
the  gods  of  the  heathen,  and  at  the  same  time  would 
seem  to  take  advantage  of  the  disposition  of  the  people 
to  hear  such  a  person  coming  out  of  the  sea.  There 
is  nothing  in  archaeological  results  that  verifies  the 
critical  theory  of  the  mythical  character  of  the  whole 
story.     Nor,  indeed,  anything  decisive  on  the  subject. 

That  portion  of  Jeremiah's  career  spent  with  the 
refugees  at  Tahpanhes  has  been  fully  presented  when 
considering  the  political  horizon  along  the  Egyptian 
border  of  Israel's  history.  ^  Archaeological  research 
throws  little  light  upon  any  questions  concerning  the 
remainder  of  this  prophet's  career.  Aside  from  her- 
meneutic  illumination,  there  is  little  that  bears  upon 
the  work  and  writings  of  this  prophet. 

The  remaining  prophetic  history,  like  that  already 
noticed,  is  very  rich  in  the  interpretive  value  of  the 
archaeological  discoveries  bearing  upon  it  not  only  at 
Jerusalem  but  in  Assyria  and  in  Babylonia.  The  ac- 
count of  these  discoveries  and  the  recognition  of  the 
light  they  throw  across  the  divine  page  is  a  most 
entrancing  story,  but  the  telling  of  it  would  be  quite 
foreign  to  the  purpose  of  this  book  on  the  deciding 
voice  of  the  monuments,  and  especially  of  this  Third 
Part  of  the  book,  which  is  only  to  set  forth  the  Bible 
as  archaeology  makes  it  to  appear  in  the  present  stage 
of  critical  discussion. 

The  two  principal  remaining  points  of  criticism  which 
archaeology  illustrates,  the  most  important,  indeed,  in 
the  whole  latter  portion  of  Israel's  history  and  upon 
the  eastern  part  of  her  political  horizon,  are  the  unity 
of  Isaiah  and  the  life  and  book  of  Daniel. 


282  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

1.  The  unity  of  Isaiah.  The  unity  of  Isaiah  is  pri- 
marily a  literary  question  exclusively.  Latterly,  how- 
ever, some  advocates  of  a  partition  of  the  book  between 
two  or  more  authors  have  urgently  pressed  a  claim  for 
positive  archaeological  support  for  their  theory.  At 
first  glance  at  least,  as  we  shall  see,  there  is  a  fair 
degree  of  plausibility  in  the  claim.  The  reader  shall 
now  judge  for  himself  whether  or  not  this  plausibility 
is  sustained  upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  evidence. 

It  is  pointed  out  by  some  critics  that  the  "Deutero- 
Isaiah"  gives  a  most  graphic  description  of  the  difficul- 
ties and  dangers  of  the  return  journey  of  the  exiles  to 
the  homeland  that  he  might  cheer  them  by  his  exalted 
faith  and  hope  to  brave  all. 

"The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness, 
Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  straight  in  the 
desert  a  highway  for  our  God.  Every  valley  shall  be 
exalted,  and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  made 
low;  and  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and  the 
rough  places  plain;  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together;  for  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it."^ 

"When  thou  passest  through  the  waters,  I  will  be 
with  thee;  and  through  the  rivers,  they  shall  not  over- 
flow thee;  when  thou  walkest  through  the  fire,  thou 
shalt  not  be  burned;  neither  shall  the  flame  kindle 
upon  thee. "2 

"Thus  saith  the  Lord,  which  maketh  a  way  in  the 
sea,  and  a  path  in  the  mighty  waters;  which  bringeth 
forth  the  chariot  and  horse,  the  army  and  the  power. 
They  shall  lie  down  together,  they  shall  not  rise;  they 
are  extinct,  they  are  quenched  as  tow.  Remember  ye 
not  the  former  things,  neither  consider  the  things  of 


THE  UNITY  OF  ISAIAH  283 

old.  Behold,  I  will  do  a  new  thing;  now  it  shall  spring 
forth;  shall  ye  not  know  it?  I  will  even  make  a  way  in 
the  wilderness,  and  rivers  in  the  desert.  The  beast 
of  the  field  shall  honor  me,  the  dragons  and  the  owls; 
because  I  give  waters  in  the  wilderness,  and  rivers  in 
the  desert,  to  give  drink  to  my  people,  my  chosen. 
This  people  have  I  formed  for  myself;  they  shall  set 
forth  my  praise."^ 

Again,  the  vivid  description  of  the  transport  of  the 
heathen  gods  on  the  backs  of  "donkeys"  is  relied  upon 
as  most  conclusive  when  compared  with  certain  archae- 
ological evidence  presently  to  be  stated.  This  ludicrous 
portraiture  of  the  helplessness  of  the  gods  is  in  the 
following  language: 

"Bel  boweth  down,  Nebo  stoopeth;  their  idols  were 
upon  the  beasts,  and  upon  the  cattle;  your  carriages 
were  heavy  laden;  they  are  a  burden  to  the  weary 
beast.  They  stoop,  they  bow  down  together;  they 
could  not  deliver  the  burden,  but  themselves  are  gone 
into  captivity."^ 

The  archaeological  evidence  confidently  relied  upon 
by  some  as  not  merely  harmonizing  with  the  divisive 
theory,  but  positively  confirming  it,  is  brought  out  as 
follows.  It  is  pointed  out  that  the  accuracy  and  vivid- 
ness of  the  description  of  the  difficulties  and  the  dangers 
of  the  return  journey  are  startling;  the  wild  beasts, 
the  swelling  rivers,  the  scorching  flame  of  the  desert 
under  the  unclouded  sun,  the  unprepared  way  in  the 
wilderness  along  the  desert  caravan  road — all  this,  it 
is  said,  reflects  the  frame  of  mind  of  one  preparing  for 
the  journey,  the  fervor  of  the  enthusiast  in  an  exalted 
state  striving  to  nerve  others  for  the  journey  by  stirring 
the  heroic  in  the  national  character. 


284  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

The  description  of  the  transport  of  the  idols  is  then 
laid  along  side  of  this  inscription  of  Cyrus: 

"From  the  month  Chislu  to  the  month  Adar,  the 
gods  of  Accad  whom  Nabonidus  had  carried  to  Babylon, 
returned  I  to  their  cities."^  Here,  it  is  urged,  was  a 
dramatic  scene  passing  before  the  eyes  of  the  'Deutero- 
Isaiah"  which  he  described  in  the  words  above  quoted. 

Thus  far  the  case  seems  quite  plausible.  But  this 
is  not  all  that  is  to  be  said  on  the  subject.  According 
to  the  theory,  as  also  according  to  the  Bible  narrative, 
Isaiah  remained  in  Palestine.  He  was  not  in  the  cap- 
tivity nor  ever  made  that  dreadful  journey.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  said,  the  ''Deutero-Isaiah"  grew  up  in 
Babylon  and  remained  there  until  the  return.  Neither 
of  them  is  supposed,  up  to  the  time  of  the  prophecy, 
to  have  traveled  the  road  between  Babylon  and  Jerusa- 
lem. The  road,  however,  was  well  known  and  much 
traveled  by  government  officials  and  messengers,  so 
that  information  was  available  concerning  it  at  both 
ends  of  the  road  and  quite  as  available  at  Jerusalem  as 
in  Babylon.  Is  it  not,  indeed,  the  common  experience 
that  it  is  among  provincials  on  the  outposts  of  empire 
rather  than  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment that  such  hardships  are  most  to  the  front  as  a 
topic  of  conversation?  Certainly  the  dangers  and  dif- 
ficulties of  this  route  could  be  appreciated  as  well 
from  Jerusalem  as  from  Babylon,  and  the  prophet, 
wrought  up  (by  his  great  desire  to  prepare  the  people 
to  return)  to  the  exalted  state  evinced  in  the  prophecy 
could  have  written  the  description  as  vividly  at  Jeru- 
salem as  in  Babylon.  Thus  the  archaeological  evidence 
is  quite  as  available  for  Isaiah  as  the  author  of  this 
part  of  the  prophecy  as  for  the  ''Deutero-Isaiah." 


THE  UNITY  OF  ISAIAH  285 

Turning  to  the  second  part  of  the  archaeological 
evidence  adduced  to  sustain  the  critical  partition  of 
Isaiah,  it  will  be  discovered  that  a  close  examination 
of  it  is  not  encouraging  to  that  theory.  The  inscription 
of  Cyrus  speaks  only  of  the  return  from  captivity; 
"The  gods  of  the  land  ....  returned  I  to  their 
cities."  The  prophet,  on  the  other  hand,  speaks  only 
of  the  going  into  captivity, — "are  gone  into  captivity." 
The  manner  of  the  transport  "upon  the  beasts  and  upon 
the  cattle,"  though  used  with  telling  effect  in  the 
sarcasm  of  the  prophet  directed  against  the  heathen 
gods,  does  not  enter  into  this  controversy,  for  the 
reason  that  the  "beasts,"  probably  donkeys,  and  the 
"cattle"  were  the  common  carriers  of  the  age  and  the 
land.  Whenever  gods  went  "into  captivity"  or  were 
"returned  to  their  cities,"  it  would  be  by  such  means. 
But  the  discrepancy  between  the  prophecy  about  the 
going  "into  captivity"  and  the  inscription  of  Cyrus 
about  the  return  "to  their  cities"  is  of  vital  importance 
in  the  discussion.  Isaiah,  looking  forward  to  all  the 
events  connected  with  the  captivity,  would  naturally 
speak  not  of  the  return  "to  their  cities,"  but  of  the 
going  "into  captivity,"  as  it  is  in  the  prophecy.  Not 
so  the  supposed  "Deutero-Isaiah."  He,  if  writing,  as 
is  claimed,  of  the  return  "to  their  cities"  in  the  days 
of  Cyrus,  would  have  turned  his  sarcasm  definitely 
upon  the  helplessness  of  the  gods  who  had  to  be  taken 
home  "upon  the  beasts  and  upon  the  cattle,"  yet  of 
this  he  makes  no  mention  whatever. 

Certainly  this  piece  of  evidence  has  made  no  progress 
for  the  view  that  would  turn  this  part  of  the  prophecy 
into  history.  It  is  not  contended  that  this  archae- 
ological evidence,  or  any  other  archaeological  evidence 


286  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

yet  produced,  is  decisive  on  this  question  of  the  unity 
of  Isaiah,  but  only  that  it  is  consistent  with  the  unity, 
and  that  it  is  not  so  consistent  with  the  divisive  theory. 

2.  The  life  and  hook  of  Daniel.  The  question  of  the 
Hfe  and  the  book  of  Daniel  has  been  put  by  some  one 
in  the  laconic  form,  "Did  Daniel  write  Daniel?"  Are 
we  to  accept  the  historico-prophetic  view  that  Daniel 
was  an  historic  person  and  a  prophet,  who  lived  and 
prophesied  in  Babylon  in  the  days  of  the  exile,  and 
that  the  book  bearing  his  name  embodies  his  prophecies 
and  was  written  by  him  or  by  some  one  in  his  times,  the 
age-long  view  which  the  Christian  faith  has  taken  over; 
or  is  that  faith  now  to  be  adapted  to  the  apocalyptic 
view  that  Daniel  may  have  been,  or  may  not  have 
been,  an  historical  person,  but  that,  in  any  case,  the 
book  of  Daniel  is  a  product  of  the  Maccabean  age  when 
the  apocalyptic  method,  the  turning  of  history  into 
visions,  was  common,  and  after  the  events  so  specifi- 
cally narrated  in  Daniel  had  become  history? 

It  is  entirely  beyond  the  province  of  this  book  to 
enter  upon  a  full  discussion  of  this  question.  Except 
that  archaeology  has  made  contributions  of  evidence 
of  use  in  the  discussion,  it  would  not  be  mentioned  at 
all.  Only  certain  objections  urged  against  the  historico- 
prophetic  view  of  Daniel  and  in  favor  of  the  apocalpytic 
view  upon  which  archaeological  evidence  directly  bears 
are  here  to  be  noticed.  These  objections,  made  at 
various  times  in  the  course  of  the  controversy — some 
of  them  still  vigorously  pressed — are: 

That  Belshazzar  is  not  mentioned  by  any  secular 
historian; 

That  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  the  father  of  Bel- 
shazzar, though  he  "did  not  belong  to  the  same  family" ; 


THE  LIFE  AND  BOOK  OF  DANIEL  287 

That  Babylon  was  not  taken  in  the  manner  described 
in  the  book  of  Daniel; 

That  no  such  person  as  Darius  the  Mede  is  known; 
and 

That  some  of  the  musical  instruments  named  are 
Greek,  most  reasonably  and  naturally  to  be  expected 
in  Babylon  after  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 

To  these  objections,  in  order,  archaeology  makes 
answer : 

Belshazzar  is  now  a  well-known  personage.  Naboni- 
dus  in  a  prayer  to  the  moon-god  Sin  pleads:  ''And 
as  for  me,  Nabonidus,  the  king  of  Babylon,  protect 
thou  me  from  sinning  against  thy  exalted  godhead, 
and  grant  thou  me  graciously  a  long  life;  and  in  the 
heart  of  Belshazzar,  my  first-born  son,  the  off-spring 
of  my  loins,  set  the  fear  of  thine  exalted  godhead,  so 
that  he  may  commit  no  sin  and  that  he  may  be  satisfied 
with  the  fullness  of  life!"^ 

Nebuchadrezzar  was  not  the  immediate  father  of 
Belshazzar.  By  the  well-known  Oriental  usage  of  those 
times  and  of  all  times  down  to  the  present,  the  words 
father  and  son  both  may  denote  less  immediate  rela- 
tionship than  among  us,  and  may  even  be  used  of  official 
precedence  or  succession  or  merely  fittingly  to  express 
appearances  and  show  courtesy  where  no  real  kinship 
whatever  exists.  Did  not  Elisha  say  of  Elijah,  ''My 
father,  my  father  I"^  Bedouins  of  the  desert  call  young 
men  of  a  party  "sons"  and  an  older  man  the  "father." 

Belshazzar  was  not  the  immediate  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar but  of  Nabonidus.  Nor  was  Nabonidus  the 
son  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  there  is  much  evidence 
which  points  to  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  the 
wife   of  Nabonidus  and  the  mother  of  Belshazzar.* 


288  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Moreover,  if  there  was  no  evidence  on  the  subject,  it 
is  always  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  kings  do  have  daugh- 
ters, that  the  sexes  are  about  equal  in  number,  and  that 
there  is  thus  always  an  equal  probability  of  a  prince 
being  descended  in  the  royal  line  through  his  mother 
as  through  his  father.  There  is  here  no  impossibility 
or  even  improbability  in  Daniel's  account  of  Belshaz- 
zar's  descent. 

All  the  events  in  the  taking  of  Babylon  are  not  yet 
understood,  but  much  has  become  clear.  The  chronicle 
of  Nabonidus  says:  "In  the  month  of  Tammuz,  Cyrus, 
when  he  made  battle  in  Kesh  (Opis)  on  the  banks  of 
the  river  Zalzallat,  with  the  soldiers  of  Accad,  conquered 
the  inhabitants  of  Accad.  On  the  14th,  Sippara  was 
taken  without  a  battle.  Nabonidus  fled.  On  the  16th 
Gobryas,  the  governor  of  the  land  of  Gutium,  and  the 
soldiers  of  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  without  a  battle. 
Later  Nabonidus  was  captured  because  he  tarried  in 
Babylon.  To  the  end  of  the  month  the  shield  bearers 
of  Gutium,  guarded  the  gates  of  Esagila.  No  arms  of 
any  kind  were  taken  into  Esagila  or  into  the  shrines; 
nor  was  the  standard  carried  in.  On  the  third  day  of 
Marchesvan  Cyrus  entered  Babylon.  Difficulties  were 
cleared.  (?)  Peace  was  established  for  the  city.  Cyrus 
proclaimed  peace  for  all  Babylonia  and  from  the  month 
Kislev  unto  Adar  the  gods  of  Accad  whom  Nabonidus 
had  brought  to  Babylon  returned  to  their  cities.  In 
Marchesvan,  by  night,  on  the  11th,  Gobryas  in  .... 
and  the  son  of  the  king  was  killed.  From  the  27th 
of  Adar,  until  the  3d  of  Nisan  there  was  lamentation 
in' Accad.     All  the  people  bowed  their  heads. "^ 

It  is  evident  that  most  of  the  events  of  the  taking 
of  Babylon  as  described  in  the  Bible  did  take  place,  and 


THE  LIFE  AND  BOOK  OF  DANIEL  289 

there  is  no  necessary  conflict  between  the  account  in 
Daniel  and  the  account  by  Nabonidus.  The  chronicler 
is  interested  in  the  great  affairs  of  the  army  of  Cyrus 
and  the  political  changes  in  the  land,  and  so  describes 
many  things  of  which  Daniel  makes  no  mention.  The 
sacred  historian,  on  the  other  hand,  from  his  charac- 
teristic viewpoint  of  God's  providence,  makes  most  out 
of  that  later  portion  of  the  military  operations  when 
"In  Marchesvan,  by  night,  on  the  eleventh,  Gobryas 
in  ...  .  and  the  son  of  the  king  was  killed."  The 
archaeological  evidence  supplements  the  Bible  account 
very  much,  but  presents  nothing  contradictory  to  it, 
and  makes  nothing  in  it  improbable. 

Darius  the  Mede  is  still  a  mysterious  person,  but 
not  as  mysterious  as  he  was;  nor  was  he  ever  quite  as 
mysterious  as  he  is  sometimes  represented  to  be.  ' '  Xen- 
ophon  says  that  a  Mede  succeeded  to  the  throne  of 
Babylon.  He  gives  him  the  name  Cyaxeres."^  Aes- 
chylus in  his  Persae  mentions  a  Mede  as  the  first 
leader,  followed  by  Cyrus.  There  occurs  in  the  scholi- 
ast upon  Aristophanes  this  statement,  ''The  Daric  {i.e., 
the  coin)  is  not  named  from  Darius  (Hystaspes)  the 
father  of  Xerxes,  but  from  another  preceding  king." 

That  Cyrus  would  have  subordinate  rulers  in  the 
provinces  is  a  certainty.  Professor  R.  D.  Wilson^  has 
shown  that  there  are  five  Assyrio-Babylonian  words 
meaning  in  Aramaic  ''king."  Three  of  these  denote 
subordinate  rulers.  Any  of  these  words  might  be 
rendered  into  Hebrew  by  "king."  Further  he  has 
shown,  what  is  apparent  even  in  the  English  Bible, 
that  "kmg"  sometimes  means  little  more  than  mayor 
of  a  city. 


290  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

Finally,  a  general  of  Cyrus'  army,  Gobryas,  whose 
name  is  Median,  plainly  appears  in  command  at  Baby- 
lon at  the  time  the  Persians  began  their  rule;  he  "took 
the  kingdom."  Considering  that  it  was  common,  as 
it  is  still  common  for  Eastern  monarchs  as  well  as 
Western  monarchs,  to  have  several  names  it  is  not  at 
all  impossible  that  the  Cyaxeres  of  Xenophon,  Gobryns 
of  Nabonidus,  and  ''Darius  the  Mede"  are  one  and  the 
same  person.  He  would  be  a  hardy  critic,  indeed,  who 
would  dare  to  say  that  "Darius  the  Mede"  is  impossi- 
ble. 

Greek  musical  instruments  with  Greek  names  did 
for  a  long  time  seem  to  "harmonize"  with  Daniel's 
critics.  They  have  furnished  very  tuneful  music  as 
an  accompaniment  to  the  critical  presentation  of  the 
"apocalypse"  of  Daniel.  But  of  late  some  very  dis- 
cordant notes  have  been  detected.  Some  Greek  archae- 
ologists now  claim  that  there  are  indications  that  Greek 
music  was  an  introduction  from  the  East,  probably 
from  Persia.  The  tendency  of  musical  instruments  to 
carry  their  names  with  them  is  well  known.  It  is 
certain  that  there  was  a  very  wide  intercourse  of  Greeks 
with  other  nations  as  early  as  the  XVIIIth  and  XIX 
Egyptian  dynasties,  about  nine  hundred  years  before 
Nebuchadnezzar.  W.  Max  Mliller  finds  those  whom 
he  thinks  to  be  ^geans  in  Egypt  about  2500  B.C.,  and 
Mesopotamians  on  the  Nile  at  the  same  early  date.' 
It  is  evident  that  there  was  intermingUng  of  foreign 
peoples  over  the  East  at  a  much  earlier  date  than  has 
been  generally  thought..  If  East  and  West  met  in 
Egypt,  might  not  there  be  at  this  common  meeting- 
place  an  interchange  of  arts  and  refinements,  and 
might  there  not  be  other  common  meeting-places  for 


THE   EVOLUTIONARY   THEORY  291 

the  people  of  East  and  West?  There  is  nothing  im- 
possible in  Greek  minstrels  themselves  being  present  in 
the  great  orchestra  of  Nebuchadnezzar  at  his  late  date. 

Here  again,  in  the  discussion  of  Daniel,  as  in  the 
discussion  of  Isaiah,  the  archaeological  evidence  is  not 
yet  complete.  Daniel  has  not  been  found,  and  not 
certainly  Darius  the  Mede.  It  is  not  claimed  that  the 
testimony  of  the  evidence  is  entirely  decisive  on  all 
points.  But  the  evidence  thus  far  produced  tends 
toward  the  establishment  of  the  historical  character 
of  both  Daniel  and  his  book.  Great  progress  has  been 
made,  and,  if  some  questions  are  yet  far  from  settled, 
we  may  await  with  calmness  the  final  decision  by 
archaeological  evidence  which  may  come  at  any  time. 

From  this  brief  review  of  the  bearing  of  the  results 
of  archaeological  research  upon  questions  raised  by 
criticism,  it  appears  that  attempts  to  reconstruct  the 
Biblical  narrative,  and  with  it  the  history  of  revelation, 
and  to  bring  Israel's  religion  into  conformity  with  the 
principles  usually  applied  in  the  comparative  study  of 
religions,  are  not  being  sustained;  that,  rather,  history 
narrated  by  the  sacred  writers,  with  all  its  startling 
outbursts  in  civilization  and  unaccountable  lapses  in 
religion  and  morals,  is  perfectly  natural  in  method. 

In  fact,  the  evolutionary  theory  applied  strictly  as 
a  constructive  or  reconstructive  principle  is  as  antago- 
nistic to  genius  with  its  marvels  of  progress,  and  to 
cataclysm  with  its  besom  of  destruction,  as  to  revelation 
with  its  message  from  God.  Thus  it  needs  constantly 
to  be  accomodated  to  the  ebbs  and  flows  of  disaster 
and  of  genius  when  applied  to  known  history  and  is 
utterly  untrustworthy  when  applied  to  unknown  or 
disputed  history. 


292  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

This  review  in  Part  III  has  also  presented  in  outHne 
the  Bible  at  its  face  value  as  it  appears  in  the  present 
light  from  archaeological  research.  Let  us  put  aside 
altogether  for  the  moment  the  question  of  the  date 
when  the  books  of  the  Bible  were  put  in  their  present 
form.  They  are  in  that  form.  The  Bible  has  a  face 
value.  No  matter  how  much  that  value  be  repudiated 
as  a  false  value,  it  exists.  Let  us  for  the  moment,  then, 
consider  the  books  and  the  Book  as  they  stand.  When 
so  considered  and  compared  with  the  results  of  archae- 
ological research,  we  have  found  that  there  is  agree- 
ment of  the  Book  in  a  remarkable  way  with  those 
results,  and  in  no  case,  is  there  lack  of  harmony  with 
them.  Thus  the  face  value  of  the  Book  is  the  archw- 
ological  value  of  the  ancient  world.  Let  us  now  attempt 
to  bring  back  the  question  of  the  date  of  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  books  which  gives  the  present  face  value 
of  Scripture.  Who  was  it  that  so  put  together  the 
statements  found  in  the  books  as  to  produce  a  face 
value  which  is  receiving  constant  and  uniform  cor- 
roboration from  the  archaeological  value  of  the  ancient 
world  now  coming  to  light?  Was  this  done  by  "holy 
men  of  God  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost?"  or  was  it  done  by  several  late  redactors 
''inspired"  to  such  literary  efforts  by  the  well-meant 
though  selfish  and  misleading  designs  of  a  priesthood 
who,  by  composing  books  of  heroic  national  religious 
history  and  attributing  laws  to  a  great  national  hero, 
thought  to  kindle  the  fires  of  religious  zeal  upon  the 
altars  of  patriotism?  Could  such  inspiration  account 
for  the  agreement  of  the  face  value  of  the  Book  with 
the  archaeological  value  of  the  ancient  world? 


CHAPTER  XX 

Conclusion 

There  is  a  dear  old  friend  of  childhood  days  who 
has  conveyed  to  us  many  vivid  impressions  of  his 
childhood  home  and  early  associations,  of  the  life  lived 
round  about  him,  and  of  the  character  of  the  times 
gone  by.  We  have  been  much  interested  and  instructed 
and  influenced  by  his  story  and  have  trusted  him 
implicitly.  But  some  persons  have  cautiously,  yet 
seriously,  raised  a  question  concerning  his  trustworthi- 
ness as  a  story-teller;  have,  indeed,  though  with  very 
politely-turned  phrases,  called  his  veracity  in  question. 
They  have  said  that  his  childhood  home  and  associa- 
tions, his  life  and  times,  were  not  such  as  he  has  caused 
us  to  think.  They  have  hastened  to  explain  that  he 
is  really  an  excellent  moral  teacher,  but,  in  his  illus- 
trative material  and  much  more  in  his  arrangement 
of  it,  he  is  quite  a  romancer. 

We  have  been  much  troubled  by  these  things  and 
have  gone  to  the  old  home  of  our  dear  friend  to  see  for 
ourselves  whether  or  not  these  things  be  so.  We  have 
visited  the  old  hearthstone,  studied  the  old  home  life 
and  neighborhood  customs  and  folklore;  have  inquired 
among  the  old  neighbors,  have  searched  the  old  records 
and  have  even  gone  to  the  old  cemetery  to  study  the 
names  of  the  dead.  Many  things  have  been  found 
exactly  as  our  old  friend  represented;  many  things 
have  been  learned  of  which  he  had  told  us  nothing  at 

293 


294  THE  DECIDING  VOICE  OF  THE  MONUMENTS 

all;  but  what  has  interested  us  most  is  that  in  all  the 
old  community  nothing  has  been  found  in  the  least 
degree  inconsistent  with  the  story  he  had  told  us.  So 
we  have  come  home  to  love  and  to  trust  him  more 
than  ever  before,  because  convinced  in  our  minds  that 
it  is  a  moral  impossibility  for  him  to  be  such  a  romancer 
and  yet  never  be  contradicted  by  the  facts. 

Which  things  are  a  parable.  From  the  standpoint 
of  archaeology,  the  whole  Biblical  question  now  raised 
by  critical  controversy  may  be  put  thus.  The  Bible  is 
our  old  friend.  It  has  given  us  many  and  vivid  im- 
pressions concerning  its  childhood  home  and  early 
associations,  the  life  and  times,  institutions  and  history, 
civilization  and  revelation,  out  of  which  it  came.  But 
there  have  come  in  these  latter  days  those  who  have 
raised  questions  concerning  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
sacred  writings.  With  protestations,  in  many  cases 
with  much  reality,  of  reverence,  they  tell  us  that  the 
representations  of  Scripture  upon  all  these  subjects  are 
largely  romantic,  legendary,  mythical;  are,  indeed, 
parable,  allegory — a  kind  of  inspired  Shakespeare,  Para- 
dise Lost  and  Regained,  and  Pilgrim's  Progress  all  in 
one.  They  have,  for  the  most  part,  assured  us  that 
this  does  not  affect  the  great  moral  and  redemptive 
teaching  of  the  Bible.  They  say  that  the  Bible  was 
not  "given  to  the  world  to  make  known  ''judgments  of 
fact,"  and  that  it  does  not  do  so  with  uniformity,  but 
that  its  "value  judgments"  are  impeccable. 

These  things  have  troubled  many  people.  The  archae- 
ologists have  gone  to  the  old  home  to  see  for  themselves 
and  for  others,  if  these  things  be  true  or  not.  They 
have  dug  up  the  old  hearthstones  and  have  delved  in 
the  dust  of  forgotten  ages  of  home  life  and  national 


CONCLUSION  295 

events.  They  have  inquired  among  neighborhood 
peoples  and  learned  their  folklore;  have  studied  the 
institutions,  and  times  and  history,  and  have  examined 
old  archives.  They  have  even  exhumed  the  dead  to 
read  their  names,  learn  their  history,  and  discern  their 
religious  beliefs.  They  have  especially  noted  the  prog- 
ress of  events  and  the  changes  taking  place  at  the 
points  at  which  our  old  friend  has  introduced  his  most 
important  lessons.  They  have  found  very  many  things 
exactly  as  the  Book  says.  Many  more  things  they 
have  learned  of  which  the  Book  says  nothing.  But 
what  is  of  the  most  interest  is  that  in  all  the  wide  scope 
of  their  investigations  they  have  found  nothing  that 
discredits  the  Book  as  a  narrator  of  facts.  So  they 
have  come  home  to  love  and  trust  the  Bible  more  than 
ever,  because  convinced  that  it  is  morally  impossible 
for  it  to  have  dealt  so  loosely  with  facts  and  never 
get  caught  at  it  by  the  archaeologists. 


PAGE 

NOTE 

2 

1 

4 

1 

4 

2 

4 

3 

5 

1 

5 

2 

5 

3 

6 

1 

13 

1 

14 

1 

14 

2 

14 

3 

14 

4 

14 

5 

15 

1 

15 

2 

15 

3 

16 

1 

16 

2 

16 

3 

16 

4 

APPENDIX 

NOTES  OF  REFERENCE 
Chapter  I 

Cf.  Zenos,  The  Elements  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  p.  9. 

Petrie,  Methods  and  Aims  of  Archaeology,  p.  viii. 

Ibid.,  p.  123. 

De  Wette,  Lehrbuch  der  hebraeisch-judaeischen  Archaologie, 
pp.  3-5;  (p.  3)  "Der  Inhalt  der  hebraeischen  Archaeolo- 
gie  ergiebt  sich  aus  dem,  was  zum  ganzen  Zustande  der 
hebraeischen  Nation  inihrergeschichtlichen  Erscheinung 
gehort."  (p.  5)  "Quellen.  Denkmaler,  Schriftliche 
Quellen  I  Classe  Alttestament.  Die  erste  und  wichtigste 
Quelle  ist  das  A.  T.  welches  mit  sehr  vorsichtiger  Unter- 
scheidung  des  Alters  der  einzelnen  Schriften  und  mit 
strenger  Wiirdigung  ihres  historischen  Characters  zu 
benutzen  ist." 

Catholic  Encyc.  Art.  Bib.  Antiq.  (Gabrielle  Oussani), 

Jewish  Encyc.  Art.  Bib.  Arch. 

Cf.  p.  60. 

Cf.  Zenos,  Elements  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  p.  9. 

Chapter  II 

Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  12. 

Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology,  pp.  143-150. 

Driver,  Introduction,  '97,  p.  4. 

Driver,  Genesis,  Addenda  and  Corrections. 

Cheyne,  Bible  Problems,  p.  142. 

Orr,  Problem  of  the  Old  Test.,  pp.  395-430. 

Eerdmans,  Hibbert  Journal,  1909,  pp.   813-826.     Cf.   Alt- 

testamentliche  Studien. 
Wiener,  Bib.  Sacr.,  1908-1910. 
Wiener,  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  p.  47. 
Brugsch,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  cf.  chaps,  v  and  vi. 
Naville,  Store  City  of  Pithom,  Egypt.  Ex.  Fund,  1883-84. 
Naville,  Recueille  de  Travaux,  vol.  xx,  1898,  p.  32. 
Petrie,  British  School  of  Archaeology  in  Egypt,  1906. 

297 


298  APPENDIX 


Jer.  DasAlte  Testament  im Lichte  des  alien  Orients,  especially 

chaps,  iv-xix. 
Miiller,  Asien  und  Europa,  especially  chaps,  x-xxv. 
Kyle,  Bible  Student  and  Teacher,  November,  1906,  p.  366. 

Chapter  III 
Deut.,  xii,  2-3. 
/  Kings,  xii,  31. 
Jer.,  iii,  6. 

Vincent,  Canaan,  p.  144. 

Macalister,  Pales.  Ex.  Fund.  Statement,  1903,  pp.  23-31. 
Robinson,  Biblical  World,  January,  1901,  January,  1908. 

Chapter  IV 

Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology,  p.  143. 

Renouf,  Life-work,  i,  pp.  6-7. 

Budge,  The  Mummy,  p.  124. 

Cf .  de  Guines,  Le  Chow-King,  Pref . ;  also  Essai  Historique 
sur  L'origine  des  Characters  Orientaux. 

Petrie,  Abydos,  Royal  Tombs. 

Evans,  Quarterly  Review,  October,  1904,  pp.  374-395. 

Schliemann,  Ilios,  City  and  Country  of  the  Trojans,  p.  13. 

Cf.  p.  13. 

Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  12. 

George  Adam  Smith,  Hist.  Geog.,  pp.  107-108. 

Napoleon,  Campagnes  d'Egypte  et  de  Syrie,  dieters  par 
Napoleon  lui  mime,  vol.  ii.  "En  campant  sur  les  ruines 
de  ces  anciennes  villes,  on  lisait  tous  les  soirs  I'Ecriture 
Sainte  a  haute  voix  sous  la  tente  du  general  en  chef. 
L'analogie  et  la  verite  des  descriptions  etaient  frap- 
pantes:  elles  conviennent  encore  a  ce  pays  aprds  tant  de 
siecles  et  de  vicissitudes." 

Chapter  V 

Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology,  p.  145. 

Seiss,  Miracle  in  Stone,  p.  307. 

George  Adam  Smith,  Hist.  Geog.,  p.  108. 

Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology,  p.  148. 

Kyle,  Bib.  Sacra.,  July,  1910,  pp.  386-387. 

Kautzsch,  Die  bleibende  Bedeutung  des  Alttestaments ,  p.  172. 

Gen.,  X,  11-12. 


PAGE 

NOT 

17 

1 

17 

2 

18 

1 

28 

1 

28 

2 

28 

3 

28 

4 

28 

5 

28 

6 

31 

1 

35 

1 

36 

1 

36 

2 

38 

1 

38 

2 

38 

3 

40 

1 

40 

2 

40 

3 

40 

4 

47 

1 

47 

2 

49 

1 

49 

2 

51 

'  1 

52 

1 

52 

2 

PAGE 

NOTl 

55 

1 

55 

2 

57 

1 

57 

2 

57 

3 

60 

1 

60 

2 

60 

3 

60 

4 

60 

5 

60 

6 

60 

7 

60 

8 

61 

1 

61 

2 

61 

3 

APPENDIX  299 

Gen.,  XV,  13-16;  Ex.,  xii,  40. 

R.  S.  Poole,  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  art.  Genealogy. 

Petrie,  Six  Temples  at  Thebes,  pp.  26-28,  pis.  xiii-xiv. 

Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  iii,  pp.  156-157. 

Kyle,  Bible  Student,  January,  1902,  pp.  33-36. 

Napoleon,  Campagnes  d'Egypt  et  de  Syrie. 

Robinson,  Biblical  Researches. 

Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine. 

Thompson,  The  Land  and  the  Book. 

Van  Lennep,  Bible  Lands. 

Palmer,  The  Desert  of  the  Exodus. 

Clermont  Ganneau,  P.E.F.,  Archaeological  Researches. 

Van  Dyke,  Out  of  Doors  in  Palestine. 

Wiener,  Bib.  Sacra,  1908-1910. 

Brugsch,  Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs. 

Naville,  The  Store  City  of  Pithom,  also  Recueill  de  Travaux, 
vol.  XX,  p.  32,  1898. 
61        4    Petrie,  Hist,  of  Egypt;  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities;  Tanis, 

Part  11;  Researches  in  Sinai  and  Egypt,  and  the  Bible. 
61        5    Rawlinson,  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society. 
61        6     Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive  discouvert  et  decrit. 
61        7     Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains. 
61        8    Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,   Patriarchal 

Palestine. 
61        9    Vincent,  Canaan,  d'Aprbs  VExploraiion  Recent. 
61       10    Hilprecht,  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands. 
61       11     Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel. 
61      12    Steindorf,  In  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands  (Hilprecht.) 

Chapter  VI 

64  1     Wright,  Scientific  Confirmations,  pp.  234-235. 

65  1    Ibid.,  pp.  235-236. 
65        2    Ibid.,  p.  240. 

65  3  Ibid.,  p.  241. 

65  4  Ibid.,  p.  292. 

65  5  Ibid.,  p.  292. 

66  1  Ibid.,  p.  303. 
66  2  Ibid.,  p.  321. 
66  3  Ibid.,  p.  322. 

66  4    Ibid.,  p.  144;  also  Blankenkorn,  Z.D.P.V.,  xix,  p.  1. 

67  1     Wright,  Scientific  Confirmations,  p.  146. 

67        2    Gen.,  xii,  10-20;  xiii,  1;  xli,  14-46;  xlvii,  1-12. 


300  APPENDIX 


Barton,  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  xxviii,  part  ii,  1909, 

pp.    165-166. 
H.  P.  Smith,  Old  Test.  Hist.,  pp.  35-51. 
Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  318,-319.     Cf.  Orr,  Problem 

of  the  Old  Test.  p.  57. 
Brugsch,  Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs,  p.  102. 
Ibid.,  chaps,  v-vi. 
Petrie,  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities. 
Ibid.,  pp.  3,  10,  pi.  ix. 
Ibid.,  pp.  5-9,  pis.  ii,  iii,  iv. 
Kyle,  Recueill  de  Travaux,  xxx,  Geographic  and  Ethnic  Lists 

of  Rameses  II. 
Miiller,  Asien  u.  Europa,  2tes  Kapitel. 
Kyle,  Cf.  Bib.  Sacra,  July,  1910,  pp.  374-375. 

Chapter  VII 

Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  ch.  viii. 

Gen.,  xiv,  13. 

Ibid.,  14. 

Heb.  vii,  3. 

Greenfield,  Comprehensive  Com.,  Gen.,  xiv,  18-19. 

Meyer,  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  vii,  3. 

Ibid.  (American  editor). 

Marcus  Dodds,  Gen.,  pp.  128-130. 

Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  iv,  pp.  231-235. 

Cf.  pp.  54-58. 

Chapter  VIII 

Driver,  Genesis,  Addenda,  p.  xx. 

Peake,  The  Present  Movement  of  Biblical  Science  (in  Inaug- 
ural Lectures  by  Members  of  the  Faculty  of  Theology 
of  Manchester  University,  p.  31). 

Von  Bohlen,  Gen.  (Eng.),  pp.  29-41. 

Reuss,  Geschichte  der  Schriften  alten  Testaments,  p.  96. 
"Ja,  und  dies  gehort  unmittelbar  an  diese  Stelle  unseres 
Berichtes,  lasst  sich  mit  Fug  and  Recht  fragen,  ob  von 
Schreibkunst  bei  den  Israeliten,  und  von  den  andern 
dazu  gehorigen  Kiinsten,  in  dem  hier  vorauszusetzenden 
Umfang  die  Rede  sein  konne  zu  Mose's  Zeit.  Lasso  man 
diesen  immerhin  nach  der  Sage  in  agyptischer  Weisheit 
unterrichtetsein,  die  kananaitische  Schrift,  deren  sich  die 


PAGE 

NOTE 

69 

1 

69 

2 

70 

1 

70 

2 

70 

3 

71 

1 

71 

2 

71 

3 

71 

4 

71 

5 

72 

1 

74 

1  ' 

74 

2  i 

74 

3  . 

75 

1 

75 

2  1 

75 

3  : 

75 

4  . 

76 

1  : 

76 

2  : 

76 

3  < 

79 

1  ] 

80 

1  ] 

81 

1  ^ 

81 

2  ] 

APPENDIX  301 

PAGE      NOTE 

Hebraer  bedienten  so  weit  die  Geschichte  reicht,  war  dort 
eine  fremde.  Soil  er  dieselbe  wohl  gar  erfunden  haben? 
Zudem  screibt  Niemand  ganze  Biicher  als  fiir  Menchen 
die  lesen  konnen  und  wircklich  lesen.  Es  soUen  indessen 
diese  Bedenken  nicht  als  durchaus  entcheidende  auf- 
gestellt  sein.  Mag  die  Vorstellung  von  weit  verbreiteter 
altsemitischer  Cultur  sich  rechtfertigen,  die  eigene 
Beschaffenheit  der  Gesetze  und  ihre  Sammlung  gibt  den 
Ausschlag  bei  der  Frage  nach  ihrem  Ursprunge." 
82  1  Dillmann,  Num.,  Deut.  u.  Josh.,  pp.  594-595.  "Aber  auch 
der  gesetzliche  Theil  des  Pentateuchs  kann  nicht  von 
Mose,  sei  er  geschrieben,  sei  er  miindlich  verktindigt  u. 
durch  andere  aufgeschrieben,  sein  (s.  meine  Ausfiihrung 
in  Schenkel's  BL.  II.  439  flf.)  Abgesehen  davon,  dass 
eine  so  ausgedehnte  Schriftstellerei  in  den  Anfangen 
des  Volkes  Isr.  nicht  annehmbar  ist  u.  viel  mehr  auf  eine 
Zeit  hinweist,  in  welcher  Schreibe-  u.  Lesekunst  viel 
verbreitet  war,  zeigen  sich  im  gesetzlichen,  wie  im  erzah- 
lenden  Theil  so  viele  Wiederholungen,  Abweichungen 
(sogar  im  Hauptdekalog  zwichen  E.  20u.D.5)  u.  Wider- 
spriiche  der  gesetzl.  Bestimmungen,  auch  so  grosse 
formale  oder  redactionelle  Verschiedenheiten  (von  der 
knappsten,  biindigsten  Fassung  bis  zur  ausfiihrlichsten, 
iiber  die  casuistischen  Einzelheiten  sich  verbreitenden 
Darstellung),  zugleich  eine  Reihe  von  sachlich  u.  sprach- 
lich  zusammengehorenden  und  wieder  von  anderen  sich 
unterscheidenden  Buchschichten,  dass  schon  um  des- 
willen  an  einheitlichen  Ursprung  dieser  ganzen  Gesetzes- 
schrift  nicht  zu  denken  ist." 

Driver,  Gen.,  pp.  xlii-xliii. 

Orr,  Problem  of  the  Old  Test.,  p.  375. 

Sayce,  Archaeology  of  the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  p.  143; 
also  Heutzy  Revue  d'Assyriologie,  1897,  pp.  1-17. 

84  2    Rodgers,  Hist,  of  Bab.  and  Assyr.,  i,  p.  366  (some  would 

reduce  this  by  1000  years). 

85  1     Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  iv,  pp.  184-241 ;  Conder,  The  Tell 

Amarna  Tablets. 

86  1     Orr,  Problem  of  the  Old  Test.,  p.  60. 

87  1     Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel,  i,  pp.  108-109. 

88  1     George  Adam  Smith,  Expositor,  1908,  pp.  254-272. 
88        2    Sellin,  Tel  Taannek. 

88        3    Macalister,  P.E.F.S.;  Vincent,  Canaan,  chap.  i. 


82 

2 

83 

1 

84 

1 

PAGE 

NOTE 

89 

1 

89 

2 

89 

3 

90 

1 

93 

1 

95 

1 

95 

2 

96 

1 

96 

2 

96 

3 

97 

1 

97 

2 

97 

3 

302  APPENDIX 

Vincent,  P.E.F.S.,  1908,  p.  223,  also,  Macalister,  P.E.F.S., 
1908,  pp.  96-108. 

Petrie,  Deshasha;  Egypt.  Explo.  Fund,  pi.  iv. 

Deut.,  i,  28. 

Birch,  Records  of  the  Past,  1st  series,  ii,  pp.  35-52.  Lepsius, 
Denkmaler,  Abth.  iii,  32,  32A,  30A,  SOB;  Auswahl  iii, 
442-445;  Sayce,  Archaeology  and  the  Cuneiform  Inscrip- 
tions, pp.  156-7. 

Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel,  i,  p.  225. 

George  Adam  Smith,  P.E.F.S.,  pp.  287-288. 

Fripp,  Composition  of  Genesis,  Intro.,  p.  v. 

Robertson,  Early  Religion,  p.  30. 

De  Wette,  Int.,  ii,  p.  71,  Parker's  note. 

Von  Bohlen,  Gen.,  p.  91. 

MiiUer,  Asien  und  Europa,  p.  136. 

Chabas,  Records  of  the  Past,  new  series,  vol.  ii,  pp.  18-36. 

Kyle,  Receuill  de  Travaux,  xxx,  Geograpic  and  Ethnic  Lists 
of  Rameses  II. 

Chapter  IX 

99        1     Schultz,  Old  Test.  Theology,  i,  p.  31. 

99  2  Cf.  Jeremias,  Das  Alte.  Test,  im  Lichte  des  alien  Orients; 
Hommel,  Heb.  Tradition,  ch.  v;  Clay,  Light  on  the  Old 
Test,  from  Babel,  ch.  vi;  Barton,  Journal  Bib.  Lit.,  1909. 
vol.  xxviii,  part  ii;  Kittel,  Scientific  Study  of  Old  Test. 

Cf.  pp.  126-134. 

Noldeke,  Untersuchungen,  pp.  156-171. 

Wellhausen,  Camp,  des  Hex.,  pp.  311-312.  Noldeke's 
Kritik  {Gen.,  xiv)  ist  unerschiittert  und  unumstosslich. 
Dass  zur  Zeit  Abraham's  vier  Konige  vom  persischen 
Meerbusen  her  eine  Razzia  bis  in  die  Halbinsel  des  Sinai 
machen,  dass  sie  bei  der  Gelegenheit  fiinf  Stadt-fiirsten 
welche  im  [  am]  toten  Meere  hausen  liberf  alien  und  gef  angen 
fortschleppen:  dass  endlich  Abraham  mit  318  Knechten 
den  abziehenden  Siegern  nachsetzt  und  ihnen  den  Raub 
abjagt — das  sind  einfach  Unmoglichkeiten.  Sie  werden 
dadurch  zutrauenswiirdiger  dass  sie  mit  grosser  Geflis- 
sentlichkeit  in  eine  untergangene  Welt  placirt  werden." 

101,      1     Delitzsch,  Gen.  xiv.     "Hitzig siehtindem 

Feldzuge  Kedorlaormers,  der  in  ein  14tes  Jahr  fallt, 
eine  in  die  Vorzeit  zuriickgeworfene  Abschattung  von 
2  K.  18, 13  und  erklart  das  c.  14  im  AUgem.  fiir  yungere 


99 

3 

99 

4 

100 

1 

APPENDIX  303 

PAGE        NOTE 

Sage,  welche  seit  Salem  durch  die  Anwesenheit  Jave's 
geheiligt  war,  sich  zu  vorliegenden  Gestalt  ausbilden 

konte Ed.  Meyer  urteilt  ebenso,  nur  dass 

er  sich  viel  geringschatziger  ausdritckt 

Die  neue  Pentateuchkritik,  die  von  Reuss  ihre  ersten 
Impulse  empfangen,  betrachtet  c.  14alseinsder  yiingsten, 
erst  in  die  letzte  Ausgabe  der  Genesis  eingeschriebenen 
Stticke,  auf  welche  sich  das  von  Melchisedekgesagte  Wort 

dpdtor  dmetor  dgenealogitos  anwenden  lasse 

und  Ed.  Meyer  zieht  daraus  weiter  die  Folgerung,  dass 
die  Einzelheiten  der  Erzahlung  vollstandig  unhisto- 
risch  seien." 

101  2    Ed.    Meyer,    Geschichte    des   Alterthums,    p.    551.     "t)ber 

diese  Ausdehnung  der  Elamitenmacht  haben  wir  noch 
aus  einer  gantz  anderen  Quelle  Kunde.  In  dem  Penta- 
teuch ist  Gen.  14  eine  Erzahlung  eingelegt,  die  keiner 
der  sonst  benutzten  Quellenschriften  angehort,  sondern 
offenbar  aus  einem,  sonst  verschollenen,  volkstiimlichen 
Legendenbuch  aufgenommen  ist  (ahnlich  wie  z.  B  Jud. 
19-21).     Nach  Sprache  und  Inhalt  kann  sie  erst  in  oder 

nach  dem  Babylonischen  Exil  verfasst  sein 

Dass  das  spate  Phantasie  ohne  jeden  geschichlichten 
Inhalt  ist,  bedarf  keiner  Ausfiihrung." 

102  1     Jeremias,  Das  Alte  Testament  im  lAchte  des  alten  Orients, 

p.  224.  "In  der  gesammten  Erzahlung  vom  Gericht 
iiber  Sodom  und  Gomorrha,  wie  sie  vorliegt,  klingen 
die  Motive  einer  Feuerflut  an,  die  die  Geschichte  zum 
Gegenstiick  der  Sintflut  machen. 

1.  Das  Verderben  kommt  iiber  Sodom  und  Gomorrha, 
das  einst  dem  Paradise  glich  (13 :10,  "  gleich  Xgyptenland" 
ist  Glosse)  um  des  Frevels  der  Menschen  willen. 

2.  Ein  Gerechter  wird  mit  seiner  Familie  gerettet, 
wie  Noah  bei  der  Sintflut  selbacht. 

3.  Als  Rettungsort  wird  ein  Berg  angewiesen,  19,  17; 
in  Wirklichkeit  ist  der  Rettungsort  die  Stadt  Zoar. 

4.  Der  fiir  die  Rettung  Ausersehene  wird  verlacht. 
I  Moses  14,  14. 

5.  Dem  richtenden  Gotte  wird  vorgehalten,  dass  er 
nur  die  Frevler  mit  dem  Gerichte  treffen  sollte,  18,  25." 

102        2    Barton,  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.,  1909,  vol.  xxviii,  pt.  ii,  pp. 
159-160. 


103 

2 

104 

1 

104 

2 

104 

3 

304  APPENDIX 

PAGE      NOTE 

103  1  Hommel,  Ancient  Heb.  Tradition,  chap,  v;  Clay,  Light  on 
the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  chaps,  vi-vii;  Cf.  also  Jeremias, 
Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  Alien  Orient,  kap.  xv. 

Hommel,  Ancient  Heb.  Tradition,  pp.  190-191. 

Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  pp.  126-127. 

Goodwin,  Records  of  the  Past,  2d  series,  iv,  p.  25. 

Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  v,  p.  7;  Barton,  Jour.  Bib.  Lit.,  1909, 
vol.  xxviii,  pt.  ii,  pp.  160-161  (earlier  mention  is  unknown). 
105        1     Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  iv,  p.  166;  Ibid.,  vi,  pp.  40;  136, 
188;  Conder,  Tell.  Amarna  Tablets. 

Sayce,  Archaeology  of  the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  p.  169  cf. 

Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  iv,  p.  186. 

Ibid.,  vi,  p.  34. 

Winckler,  O.L.Z.,  1906,  December  15. 

Driver,  Genesis,  Addenda  to  Seventh  Edition,  xxxv-xxxvi. 

Cf.  pp.  126-134. 

Gunkel,  Genesis  {Nowack,  Handkommentar),  pp.  262-263. 
"Die  Erzahlung  enthalt  also  im  schreienden  Contrast 
gut  Beglaubigtes  und  ganz  Unmogliches." 

Ladd,  The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture,  p.  98. 

Cf.  p.  47. 

Chapter  X 

Barton,  A  Sketch  of  Semitic  Origins,  pp.  28-29. 
Orr,  Problem  of  the  Old  Test.,  pp.  396-397. 
Clay,   Amurru. 
Ibid.,  p.  13. 

Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  p.  90. 
Kyle,  Bib.  Sac,  July,  1910,  p.  377. 
Macalister,  P.E.F.S.,  1903-1905. 

Petrie,  Personal  Religion  in  Egypt  before  Christianity,  p.  89. 
Ibid.,  p.  94. 
Ibid.,  p.  94. 
Ibid.,  p.  93, 
Ibid.,  p.  40. 
Ibid.,  p.  168. 

Moulton,  Theological  Lectures,  Manchester  University  Vol- 
ume, p.  172. 

Chapter  XI 

Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology,  p.  145. 

Cf.  chap.  iv. 

Driver,  Addenda  to  Seventh  Edition  of  Genesis,  p.  xxxiv. 


105 

2 

105 

3 

105 

4 

105 

5 

106 

1 

106 

2 

108 

1 

108 

2 

109 

1 

112 

1 

113 

1 

113 

2 

114 

1 

115 

1 

117 

1 

118 

1 

120 

1 

120 

.  2 

120 

3 

120 

4 

120 

5 

121 

1 

123 

1 

125 

1 

126 

1 

127 

1 

PAGE 

NOTE 

128 

1 

130 

1 

130 

2 

130 

3 

130 

4 

131 

1 

133 

1 

133 

2 

134 

1 

134 

2 

135 

1 

136 

1 

136 

2 

137 

1 

137 

2 

137 

3 

APPENDIX  305 


Ibid.,  p.  XXXV. 

Noldeke,  U titer suchung en,  pp.  156-157. 

Ibid.,  p.  163. 

Ibid.,  p.  165. 

Ibid.,  p.  168. 

Ibid.,  pp.  170-171. 

Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  p.  131. 

Ibid.,  p.  137. 

Sayce,  Homiletic  Review,  1911,  January,  p.  7. 

Konig,  Homiletic  Review,  1911,  July,  p.  30. 

Barton,  Journal  Biblical  Literature  and  Exigeses,  part  ii, 
1909. 

Petrie,  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities. 

Cf.  p.  233-234. 

Cf.  p.  135. 

Driver,  Addenda  to  Seventh  Edition  of  Genesis,  v.  xx. 

Breasted,  A  History  of  Egypt,  p.  530.  Cf.  American  Journal 
of  Semitic  Languages,  1904,  pp.  22-36. 
138  1  Spiegelberg,  Egyptologische  Randglossen,  1904,  p.  14. 
Breasted,  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages,  1904, 
pp.  22-36;  also  Ancient  Records,  1906,  pp.  352-355;  Kyle, 
Jour.  American  Oriental  Society,  vol.  xxxi,  part  i,  1910, 
p.  86,  with  reply  by  Breasted;  ibid.,  vol.  xxxi,  part  iii, 
1911,  p.  290f. 
138        2    Cf.  Kittel,  Scientific  Study  of  the  Old  Test.;  also  Bib.  Sacra., 

April,  1911,  p.  249. 
138        3     Smith-Eerdmans,    Expositor,    1908    (July-December),  pp. 
118-131,  254-272,  345-358. 

Chapter  XII 

140  1  Winckler,  Orientalische  Forschungen,  series  i,  pp.  24-41. 
p.  40.  "Was  wir  von  wircklichen  geschichtlichen  erin- 
nerungen  des  volkes  Israel  aus  seiner  vorkananaischern 
zeit  wissen,  weist  auf  einen  aufenthalt  in  Musri  hin. 
Ware  es  nun  undenkbar,  dass  der  kern  der  sage  von  dem 
agyptischen  aufenthalte  nichts  ware  als  diese  eine  tatsache 
und  dass  alle  anderen  angaben  nur  der  verwechslung  der 
beiden  namen  Musri  und  Misraim  ihren  ursprung  ver- 
danken?" 

Cheyne,  Bible  Problems,  p.  160. 

Macalister,  P.E.F.S.,  1903,  p.  309. 

Ex.  chaps,  xx-xxviii. 


141 

2 

143 

1 

PAGE 

NOT 

143 

2 

147 

1 

147 

2 

147 

3 

147 

4 

148 

1 

149 

1 

149 

2 

152 

1 

155 

1 

159 

1 

159 

2 

164 

1 

171 

1 

177 

1 

306  APPENDIX 


Budde,  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  59. 
Zimmern,  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament. 
Jeremias,  Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  alten  Orients. 
Jensen,  Das  Gilgamisch-Epos  in  der  Welt-liter atur. 
Barton,  Bih.  World,  1908,  new  series,  vol.  xxxi,  pp.  433^444. 
Clay,  Amurru,  pp.  15-16.    Cf.  Barton,  Biblical  World,  1908, 

p.  436. 
Clay,  Amurru,  p.  17. 
Ibid.,  p.  18. 
Cf.  p.  80ff. 

Cf.  United  Presbyterian,  June,  1906. 
George  Adam  Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching 

of  the  Old  Test.,  pp.  62-64. 
Driver,  Authority  and  Archaeology ,  p.  152. 
Prov.,  vii,  16. 

Chapter  XIII 

Orr,  Problem  of  the  Old  Test.,  pp.  85-88. 
Hogg,  Inaugural  Lectures  by  Members  of  the  Faculty  of 
Theology  of  Manchester  University,  1905,  p.  65ff. 

Chapter  XIV 

Green,  Unity  of  Genesis. 

Gen.,  X,  8-10. 

Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  pp.  89-92;  Sayce, 

Arch,  of  Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  chap.  iii. 
Guide  to  Bab.  and  Assyr.  Antiq.  British  Museum,  pi.  xxxiii. 
Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  vol.  1,  chap.  1. 
Isaiah  xix,  18. 

Macalister,  Bible  Side  Lights  at  Gezer,  chap.  ii. 
Cf.  pp.  52-53. 
Job,  i,  3. 
Num.,  xxiii,  7. 
Matt.,  ii,  1. 
Sayce,  Patriarchal  Palestine,  pp.  205-206. 

Chapter  XV 

Cf.  pp.  112-115. 
Cf.  chaps,  viii-ix. 

Sayce,  Archaeology  of  the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  pp.  139- 
141. 


194 

1 

196 

1 

196 

2 

196 

3 

198 

1 

198 

2 

199 

1 

199 

•2 

199 

3 

199 

4 

199 

5 

199 

6 

201 

1 

201 

2 

202 

1 

APPENDIX  307 

PAGE      NOTE 

202  2  Ibid.,  p.  143. 

202  3  Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  p.  127;  Hommel, 
Patriarchal  Palestine,  p.  192. 

202  4  Cf.  Barton,  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.,  xxviii,  II,  190(). 

203  1  King,  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi. 
203  2  Clay,  Light  on  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  p.  131f . 
203  3  Sayce,  Patriarchal  Palestine,  p.  70. 

203  4    Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  VP-'^^^-^^^- 

204  1     Driver,  Addenda  to  Genesis  (seventh  edition),  pp.  xxxiv- 

XXX  vi. 
206        1     Gen.,  xiv,  4. 
206        2    Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  pp.  290f. ;  Sayce, 

Patriarchal  Palestine,  p.  175. 
206        3     Vide  translations  by  Winckler,  Johns  and  Harper. 
206        4    Lyon,  Journal  American  Oriental  Society,  vol.  xxv,  p.  254. 

Chapter  XVI 

210  1    Cf.  p.  84. 

211  1     Sellin,  Tel  Taannek. 

211  2  Macalister,  P.E.F.S.,  1902-1909. 

211  3  Cf.  p.  90. 

211  4  Conder,  The  Tell  Amarna  Tablets. 

215  1  Brugsch,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  chap.  v. 

215  2  Ibid.,  chap.  vi. 

216  1  Petrie,  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities,  chaps,  i,  ii. 

216  2  Gen.,  xli,  25-40. 

217  1  Cf.  pp.  67-68. 

218  1  Miiller,  Egyptological  Researches,  pp.  61-62, 1904,  pi.  106. 
218  2  Herodotus,  Book,  II,  chap.  37. 

Chapter  XVIT 

221        1     Miiller,  Asien  und  Europa,  p.  135. 

223  1  George  Adam  Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching 
of  the  Old  Test.,  pp.  63-64;  Driver,  Authority  and  Archae- 
ology, p.  52. 

223        2    Driver,  art.  "Joseph,"  A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Hastings. 

223        3     Lieblein,  Proc.  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.,  1898,  pp.  204-208. 

225  1     Brugsch,  Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs,  pp.  121-123. 

226  1     Baedeker,  Egypt,  Tombs  of  Beni  hasan;  cf.  Miiller,  Egypto- 

logical Researches,  p.  19,  pis.  8-11. 

227  1     Cf.  p.  223  references. 

227        2    Josephus,  Against  Apion,  i,  14. 


308  APPENDIX 

PAGE       NOTE 

227  3     Petrie,  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities,  pp.  8-14;  Sayce,  Patri- 

archal Palestine,  p.  124. 

228  1     Judges,y,17; I Chron., vn,21-22;M\i\\er,  AsienundEuropa, 

p.  236. 
Gen.,  1. 

Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  v,  p.  126. 

Ibid.,  p.  123;  Naville,  Pithom,  Egypt.  Ex.  Fund,  vol.  i. 
Miiller,  Asien  und  Europa,  p.  135. 
Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  art.  "Moses." 
Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  iii,  pp.  156-157. 

Chapter  XVIII 
Gen.  xiv,  22,  29. 
Gen.  xiv,  25. 

Bible  Student,  1902,  January,  p.  29. 
1     I  Kings,  9:  16. 
1     Petrie,  Six  Temples  at  Thebes,  p.  28;  pis.  xiii-xiv;  Naville, 

Recueille  de  Travaux,  vol.  xx,  p.  32,  1898. 
Merrins,  Bilbliotheca  Sacra,  pp.  401-429,  611  -635,  1908. 
Spiegelberg,  Six  Temples  at  Thebes  (Petrie),  p.  28. 
Conder,  Tell  Amarna  Tablets. 
United  Presbyterian,  July  5,  1906. 
Green,  [/m/?/ o/ Genesis,  p.  499. 
Ps.,  xvi,  9-11;  xvii,  15. 
Job,  xix,  26. 
Isa.,  xxvi,  19. 
Ezek.,  xxvii. 
Dan.,  xii,  2. 
Petrie,  Religion  of  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  17;  cf.  Wiedemann, 

Ancient  Egyptian  Doctrine  of  Immortality;  also  Maspero, 

Guide  to  Cairo  Museum. 
250    ,    1    Cf.  pp.  151ff;   also  Lieblein,  Proc.  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.,  1898, 

pp.  202-210. 

Chapter  XIX     ' 

Deut.,  vi,  10-11;  Josh.,  xxiv,  13;  Neh.,  ix,  25. 

Ezek.,  xvi,  44-46;  Deut.,  vii,  3. 

Judges,  i. 

//  Kings,  xvii,  1-7. 

Macalister,  P.E.F.S.,  1903,  pp.  8-9,  49. 

Cf.  pp.  91-95. 

Judges,  i,  29. 

/  Kings,  xix,  16.    • 

Cf.  pp.  140-142. 


228 

2 

230 

1 

230 

2 

233 

1 

233 

2 

234 

1 

238 

1 

238 

2 

240 

1 

241 

1 

242 

1 

242 

2 

243 

1 

243 

2 

244 

1 

245 

1 

247 

1 

247 

2 

247 

3 

247 

4 

247 

5 

248 

1 

258 

1 

258 

2 

258 

3 

259 

1 

259' 

2 

259 

3 

268 

1 

268 

2 

268 

3 

PAGE 

NOTE 

269 

1 

269 

2 

269 

3 

269 

4 

269 

5 

270 

1 

270 

2 

271 

1 

272 

1 

272 

2 

272 

3 

273 

1 

273 

2 

273 

3 

274 

1 

275 

1 

278 

1 

279 

1 

279 

2 

279 

3 

279 

4 

279 

5 

280 

1 

280 

2 

281 

1 

282 

1 

282 

2 

283 

1 

283 

2 

284 

1 

287 

1 

287 

2 

287 

3 

288 

1 

289 

1 

289 

2 

290 

1 

APPENDIX  309 


/  Kings,  xii,  12-16. 

Miiller,  Egyptological  Researches,  pp.  51-54,  pis.  75-87. 

Caldecott,  Solomon's  Temple,  pp.  77-78. 

Miiller,  Egyptological  Researches,  pi.  81,  nos.  71-72. 

Driver,  Addenda  to   Seventh  Edition  of   Genesis,  p.  xx; 

Barton,  Journal  Bib.  Lit.,  vol.  xxviii,  part  ii,  1909. 
Cf.  pp.   136-138. 
Isa.,  xxxvi-xxxvii ;  Price,   Momiments  and  the  Old  Test., 

pp.  181-183. 
Budge,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  vi,  pp.  149-150. 
Jer.,  xliii,  5-7. 

Petrie,  Tell  Defenneh,  Egypt.  Ex.  Fund,  iv,  chap.  vii. 
Naville,  Pithom.,  Egypt  Ex.  Fund,  i. 
/  Sam.,  xiii. 
Ibid.,  xiii,  19. 

Vincent,  Canaan,  pp.  236-459ff,  464. 
Price,  The  Monuments  and  the  Old  Test.,  pp.  144-146. 
Ibid.,  pp.  144-147. 
Ibid.,  p.  154  (pis.  opposite  p.  292). 
Cf.  pp.  270-271. 
II  Kings,  xxii  and  xxiii,  1-30. 
//  Chron.,  xxxv,  20-24. 
Ibid.,  xxxvi,  1-4. 
Ibid.,  5-21. 

Cf.  Rawlinson  and  Layard. 
Berosus,  quoted  by  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monu- 

7nents,  p.  488. 
Cf.  pp.  272-273. 
Isa.,  xl,  3-5. 
Ibid.,  xliii,  2. 
Ibid.,  xliii,  16-21. 
Ibid.,  xlvi,  1-2. 

Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  p.  375. 
Guide  to  Bab.  and  Assyr.  Antiquities,  Brit.  Miis.,  p.  195; 
Price,  Monuments  and  the  Old  Test.,  p.  241. 
//  Kings,  ii,  12. 

Wilson,  Did  Daniel  Write  DanieU  pp.  28-32. 
C\a.y,  Light  on  the  Old  Test,  from  Babel,  pp.  374-375;  Driver, 
Authority  and  Archaeology,  pp.  124-125. 
Wilson,  Did  Daniel  Write  Daniel?  p.  56. 
Cf.  Orr,  Problem  of  Old  Test.,  p.  534. 
Miiller,  Egyptological  Researches,  1904,  p.  16,  pis.  5-7;  also 

p.  9. 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Abraham, 

the  pilgrim,  p.  73; 

the  first  pilgrim  father,  p.  212; 

familiar  pathetic  figure,  p.  73; 

such  picture  of  A.  discredited, 

p.  74; 

called  a  mythological  person, 

p.  147;  _        _ 

esteemed  unhistorical  by  Nol- 

deke,  p.  130; 

conduct  toward  Sarah  and 

Hagar,  p.  207; 

"Field  of  Abram,"  p.  136,  269. 
Abydos, 

Petrie's  excavations  at,  p.  38. 
Anachronisms, 

Fripp  concerning,  p.  95; 

Robertson  concerning,  p.  95; 

Von  Bohlen  concerning,  p.  96. 
Analysis, 

of  the  subject  of  this  book,  p. 

7. 
Archaeology, 

definition,  p.  3; 

comprehensiveness,  p.  4; 

the  biblical  field,  p.  4; 

function  in  criticism,  pp.  11- 

41; 

function  of  service,  pp.  17-28; 

Function  of  control,  pp.  29-41 ; 

function  among  encyclopaed- 
ists, p.  11; 

function  among  critics,  p.  13; 

function  of  archaeologists,  p. 

provides  way  out  of  difficulties 
of  the  Higher  Criticism,  p.  1; 
value  of  archaeological  evi- 
dence, pp.  11-41,  191; 
adequacy  of  archaeological 
evidence,  pp.  107,  191; 
confirms  the  imagery  of  the 
Bible,   p.  58; 

confirms  the  accuracy  of  Bible, 
p.  61; 


Archaeology — Continued 

"assured  results"  of,  pp.  185, 
258; 

archaeological  book  of  Joshua, 
p.  117; 

archaeological  value  of  the  an- 
cient world,  p.  292; 
does  not  sustain  mythological 
view  of  Israel's  religion,   pp. 
98-108, 149-150; 
archaeological   evidence  for 
unity  of  Isaiah,  p.  282; 
does  not  confirm  "P."  docu- 
ment, p.  259; 

archaeological  evidence  con- 
cerning Patriarchs,  pp.  126- 
133,  134-139; 

sustains  patriarchal  reception 
in  Egypt,  pp.  68-72. 

ASHUR, 

early  return  to  Palestine,  p.  227. 
Assyria, 

civilization  of,  p,  197; 

relations  with  Israel,  p.  277; 

Assyro-Babylonian  power,  p. 

277' 

Greeks  in  A.,  pp.  287,  290. 
Astral  Myths, 

character  of  the  theory,   pp. 

147-149; 

in  the  origin  of  Israel's  reli- 
gion, pp. 146-151; 

Patriarchs  in  astral  myths,  p. 

147. 
Babylonia, 

Babylonian  origins  in  criti- 
cism, p.  112; 

Professor    Barton    concerning 

criticism,  p.  112; 

Professor  Orr  concerning  criti- 
cism, p. 112; 

Professor  Clay  concerning 

criticism,  p.  113; 

Professor  Rodgers  concerning 

criticism,  p.  114; 


311 


312 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Babylonia — Continued 

Babylonian     influence  in  Ca- 
naan, pp.  201-209; 

beginnings  of  civilization  inB., 

p.  196; 

influence  in  days  of  Patriarchs, 

p.  84; 

relations  with  Israel,  p.  279; 

Assyro-Babylonian  power,   p. 

279; 

Nabonidus  at  the  taking  of  B., 

p.  288. 
Belshazzar, 

in  the  life  and  book  of  Daniel, 

p.  286; 

relations  with  Israel,  p.  287. 
Bene  Hassan, 

tombs  of,  p.  226. 
Bible, 

unity  and  trustworthiness  of, 

pp.  45-61,  115-119,  293-295; 

face    value    of    the    Bible,    p. 

291; 

presuppositions  of  the  Bible, 

p.  171; 

Biblical  Chronology  a  real  sys- 
tem, pp.  54-58; 

character  of  biblical  chronol- 
ogy, p.  78; 

old  system  of  biblical  chronol- 
ogy passing  away,  p.  76; 

indefiniteness  of  biblical  chro- 
nology, p.  55; 

synchronistic  chronology,  pp. 

57,  76-78; 

Egyptian  chronology  similar  to 

biblical,  p.  56. 
Biblical  Criticism, 

founders  of,  p.  146, 

new  system  of,  p.  146; 

liteTature  of,  p.  147; 

"assured  results"  of,  p.  186; 

new  facts  for,  p.  39; 

history  of  archaeology  in,  pp. 

7,  45-182; 

cf.  under  Criticism. 
Canaan, 

beginnings  of  civilization  of, 

p.  198; 

Babylonian  influence  in,   pp. 

83-85 ;_ 

condition  of  culture  in  C,  at 

conquest,  p.  117. 


Canons, 

guidance  concerning,  p.  21; 

literary   canons   must    be 

learned  from  each  age,  p.  22. 
Carchemish, 

Waterloo  of  Egypt,  p.  272. 
Chaedorlaomer, 

relations  with  the  Patriachs, 

pp. 127-203. 
Chronology, 

handmaid  of  history,  p.  187; 

importance  of  C,  p.  187; 

mystery  of  Oriental  C,  p.  54; 

indefiniteness   of  biblical   C, 

p.  55; 

ignorance  on  our  part,  p.  55; 

character  of  biblical  C,  p.  77; 

Biblical  C.  not  rigidly  mathe- 
matical, pp.  54,  77,  189; 

moral  elements  in,  p.  77; 

Biblical  C.  a  real  system,  p. 

54; 

Egyptian  C.  similar  to  bibli- 
cal, p.  56; 

old    assumed   biblical   system 

passing  away,  p.  76; 

Biblical   C,  synchronistic,  p. 

57. 
Circumcision, 

introduction  into  Israel,  p.  217. 
Cities  of  the  Plain, 

geological  theory  of  destruc- 
tion of,  p.  67; 

Professor    Emerson    concern- 
ing, p.  67; 

region  of,  p.  217; 

account     of     destruction    es- 
teemed unhistorical   by   Nol- 

deke,  p.  126; 

revelation  concerning  destruc- 
tion of,  p.  67. 
Civilization, 

dawn  of  civilization,  p.  l65; 

rise  of  civilizations,  p.  195; 

Semitic,  p.  196; 

Hamitic,  p.  196; 

Japhetic,  p.  196; 

mingling  of  early  civilizations, 

p.  117; 

Babylonian,  p.  196; 

Assyrian,  p.  197; 

Egyptian,  p.  198; 

Canaanite,  p.  198; 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


313 


Civilization — Continued 
European,  p.  199; 
C.  of  Palestine  at  conquest,  p. 
117; 

C.  always  has  manifestations, 
p.   142. 
Codes, 

the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  a 

C,  p.  145; 

code  of  Hammurabi,   pp.  85, 

145,  206-209; 

code  of  Hammurabi  in  Pales- 
tine, pp.  85,  206-209. 
Commandments, 

thought  by  some  originally  ten 

words,  p.  143; 

Budde  concerning,  p.  143; 

compared    with    Precepts    of 

Ptah  Hotep,  p.  144. 
Conquest, 

was  there  a  conquest?  p.  257; 

Moral  descent  at  C,  p.  261; 

mingling    of    civilizations    in 

times  of,  p.  117; 

culture  in  Palestine  in  times 

of,  p.  117. 
Criticism, 

definition,  p.  5; 

the  Higher  Criticism,  p.  6; 

the  Higher  Criticism  a  circum- 
scribed enquiry,  p.  1 ; 

limited  in  discussion  here,  p.  6; 

attitude  toward,  p.  6; 

motif  of  current  C,  p.  86; 

reconstructive    criticism,    pp. 

124,  291-292; 

guidance  of  methods  of,   pp. 

20-28; 

Babylonian  origins  in,  pp.  112- 

115; 

critical  crutches,  p.  168; 

progress  of  testing  of  critical 

theories,  pp.  77,  185-292. 
Culture, 

culture   of  Palestine   at   con- 
quest, p.  117; 

course  of  Semitic  C,  p.  201. 
Daniel, 

life  and  book  of,  pp.  286-291 ; 

different  views  concerning,  p. 

286;  _ 

relations  with  Belshazzar,  p. 

264; 


Daniel — Continued 

Darius  and  Daniel,  p.  289; 

Greek  words  in  the  book  of, 

p.  290. 
Darius, 

Darius  and  Daniel,  p.  289. 
Dispersion, 

first   and   second  dispersions, 

pp.  110,  194-195. 
Eden, 

location,  pp.  62,  194; 

evidence  concerning,  p.  62. 
Edom, 

identified,  p.  97; 

Edomites    on    the    border    of 

Egypt,  p.  233. 
Egypt, 

Egyptian  civilization,  p.  198; 

relations  with  Israel,  pp.  267- 

273; 

relations   with   Nebuchadnez- 
zar, pp.  272,  279; 

proper  names  in  E.,  pp.  157- 

160; 

Semitic  language  in  E.,  p.  215; 

coming    of    Asiatics    into    E., 

p.  215; 

Edomites  on  the  border  of  E., 

p.  233; 

Phoenicians  in  E.,  p.  70; 

Greeks  in  E.,  p.  290; 

descent  into  E.,  and  sojourn 

there,  pp.  214-216,  221; 

reception  accorded  Patriarchs 

in  E.,  pp.  70-72,  214-216; 

Hebrew  slavery  in  E.,  p.  229; 

Moses  in  E.,  p.  233; 

account    of    Moses    fits    into 

Egyptian  history,  p.  234; 

exodus  from  E.,  236; 

Egyptian  evidences  of  Mosaic 

age   of  Pentateuch,   pp.  243- 

252; 

Egyptian  evidence  against  late 

authorship  of  Pentateuch,  pp. 

151-168; 

Egyptian  words  in  Pentateuch 

pp.  249,  157-167; 

Jeremiah  in  E.,  p.  272; 

Carchemish   Waterloo    of   E., 

p.  272; 

the  "Desert  Egypt,"  pp.  140- 

142;  235; 


314 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Egypt — Continued 

Winckler  concerning  "Desert 

E.,"  p.  140; 

Cheney    concerning    "Desert 

E.,"  p.  141; 

"Desert  E."  not  sustained  by 

archaeological  research,  p.  141 ; 

evidence  from  Gezer  concern- 
ing, "Desert  E."  p.  142. 
Ethnology, 

handmaid  of  history,  p.  171 ; 

comparative    importance    of, 

p.  171. 
Evidence, 

possibilities  of  fragmentary,  p. 

193; 

value    of   archaeological,    pp. 

191-194; 

adequacy    of    archaeological, 

pp.  107, 193; 

ignoring  E.  a  source  of  falla- 
cies, p.  176; 

archaeological    evidence    on 

mythological  theory,  pp.  102- 

108; 

Egyptian  E.  against  late  au- 
thorship  of    Pentateuch,   pp. 

151-168; 

Egyptian  E.  for  Mosaic  age  of 

Pentateuch,  pp.  243-252, 
Evolution, 

limits  of  application,  p.  86; 

processes  of,  p.  116; 

"prevision"  in,  p.  119; 

evolution     in     reconstructive 

theory,  p.  291. 
Exodus, 

exodus  from  Egypt,  pp.  236- 

239; 

condition  of  Palestine  at  time 

of  E.,  p.  253. 
Facts, 

facts  to  test  theories,  p.  29; 

source  of  new  facts  with  which 

to    test   biblical   criticism,  p. 

39. 
Fallacies,  - 

source    of   differences    among 

scholars,  p.  170; 

introduced  by  presuppositions, 

p.  171;, 

deduction    without    compari- 
son, p.  173; 


Fallacies — Continued 

seeking  after  discord,  p.  174; 
ignoring  evidence,  p.  176; 
unscientific  speculation,  p.  179; 
fallacious  arguments  for  late 
authorship  of  Pentateuch,  pp. 
151-169. 

Flood, 

geological  theory  of,  p.  63; 
Professor  Saulsbury  concern- 
ing the  flood,  p.  63; 
Professor    Wright    concerning 
the  flood,  p.  64; 
dispersion  after  the  flood,  pp. 
112,  194. 

Function, 

function  of  archaeology  in  crit- 
icism, pp.  7,  11-41; 
only  recently  given  much  at- 
tention, pp.  11-17; 
function    of    service,    pp.    29, 
17-28; 

function  of  control,  pp.  29^1; 
function  in  encylopaedias,  p. 

]^'     . 

function  among  critics,  p.  13; 

function  among  archaeologists, 
p.  15. 

Genealogical  Lists, 
of  Israel,  p.  255. 

Geography, 

importance  of,  p.  187; 
handmaid  of  history,  p.  187; 
geographical     correctness     of 
Scripture,  pp.  48-51. 

Geology, 

geological  theory  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  Cities  of  the 
Plain,  p.  67; 

Professor  Emerson  concern- 
ing, p.  67; 

geological  theory  of  the  flood, 
pp.  63-66; 

Professor  Saulsbury  concern- 
ing, p.  63; 

Professor  Wright  concerning, 
p.  64. 

Gezer, 

evidence  concerning   "Desert 
Egypt"  from  G.,  p.  140. 
history  in  layers  at,  p.  118; 
High  Place  encroached  upon  at 
G.,  p.  118. 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


315 


Gomorrah, 

cf.  Cities  of  the  Plain. 
Greek, 

Greeks  in  Egypt,  p.  290: 

Greeks  in  Syria,  p.  290; 

Greek   words   in    Daniel,    pp. 

287,  290; 

New  Testament  Greek,  p.  122; 

Deissmann  concerning  N.  T. 

Greek,  p.  122. 
Hamitic, 

Hamitic  civilization,  p.  196. 
Hammurabi, 

among  the  four  kings,  p.  202; 

code  of,  pp.  85,  145,  206-209; 

code   of    in  Palestine,   p.  85, 

206-209. 
Hebrew, 

Hebrew  literature,  p.  173; 

Hebrew  slavery  in  Egypt,  p. 

229-232; 

account  of  Hebrew  slavery  not 

to  be  expected  in  Egypt,   p. 

231. 
Hermetic  Writings, 

post-christian    view    of,    pp. 

119-122; 

character  of,  pp.  119-122; 

recent  examination  by  Profes- 
sor Petrie,  p.  120; 

date  of,  p.  120. 
High  Places, 

discovery  of,  p.  28; 

described,  p.  28; 

encroached  upon  at  Gezer,  p. 

118; 

interpretation  of,  p.  28. 
Higher  Criticism, 

name,  p.  6. 

a  circumscribed  inquiry,   pp. 

1-3; 

archaeology  provides  way  out, 

p.  2. 
History, 

importance  of  historical  study 

of  Scripture,  p.  18; 

handmaids  of  H.,  pp.  187-189; 

geography  a  handmaid  of  his- 
tory, p.  187; 

chronology  a  handmaid  of  his- 
tory, p.  187-189; 

ethnology  a  handmaid  of  his- 
tory, p.  188; 


History — Continued 

one  solution  in  problems  of 
history,  p.  33; 

historical  enquiry  concerning 
Bible  quite  legitimate,  p.  108; 
ignorance  of  history  of  archae- 
ology in  criticism,  p.  45; 
scope  of  such  history,  p.  49; 
beginnings  of,  pp.  185-209; 
biblical  history,  five  periods, 
p.  186j 

investigation    of    history    in 
layers,  pp.  191-193; 
Israel's  history  and  God's  pro- 
vidence, p.  253; 
interpretation  of  literature 
aided  by  historical  enquiry,  p. 

26; 

history  of  Cities  of  Plain  es- 
teemed unhistorical  by  Nol- 
deke,  p.  125; 

some  items  of  H.  added  at  a 
later  date  in  Pentateuch,  p. 
153; 

prophetic  history  and  litera- 
ture, pp.  280-291. 

Historical  Setting, 

of  Scripture,  pp.  11-19; 
importance  of,  p.  18; 
supplied  by  archaeology,  p.  19. 

Historicity, 

Ladd  concerning  Historicity  of 
Scripture,  p.  108. 

Hieroglyphs, 
Hittite,  p.  36; 
interpretation  of,  p.  36. 

HiTTITES, 

accused  as  mythological,  pp. 
104-106; 

vindicated,  p.  106; 
Winckler  concerning,  p.  105; 
Budge  concerning,  p.  105; 
Hittite  hieroglyphs,  p.  36. 
Hyksos, 

meaning  of  name,  p.  71 ; 
rise  of,  p.  72; 

relations  between  H.  and  Pa- 
triarchs, pp. 68-72; 
reception  accorded  to  Patri- 
archs by  H.,  p.  70; 
knowledge  of  true  God  among, 
p.  71; 
at  Tell  el-Yehudiyeh,  p.  71. 


316 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Imagery, 

correctness  of  Bible  imagery, 

pp.  58-60; 

universal  working  assumption 

of  such  correctness,  p.  58; 

far-reaching  in  importance,  p. 

58; 

confirmed  bv  archaeology,  p. 

59. 
Isaac, 

story  of,  p.  219. 
Isaiah, 

unity  of,  pp.  282-286; 

argument   against   unity,    pp. 

284-286; 

archaeological  evidence  for, 

pp.  284-285. 
Israel, 

Israel's  history  in  relation  to 

God's  providence,  p.  253; 

Israel's  career,  national  peri- 
od, pp.  253-291; 

Philistines  on  Israel's  horizon, 

p.  273; 

Israel  at  the  Red  Sea,  p.  237; 

Israel  and  Shishak,  p.  269; 

Israel  and  Sennacherib,  p.  270; 

Israel  and  Tirhaka,  p.  271 ; 

relations  with  Assyria,  p.  277; 

relations   with    Babylonia,  p. 

279; 

relations   with   Nebuchadnez- 
zar, pp.  272,  279; 

relations  with  Necho,  p.  271 ; 

Palestinian  origin  of  Israel's 

culture,  pp.  91-95; 

the  oppressor  of  Israel,  p.  229; 

religion  of  Israel,  p.  146; 

astral  myths  claimed  in,  pp. 

146-151 ; 

leaders    of    Israel    as    mvths, 

pp.  146-149; 

preposterous  and  blasphemous 

character  of  mythical  theory, 

p.  149. 
Jacob, 

obsequies  of,  p.  228; 

Jacob  scarabs,  p.  227. 
Japhetic, 

Japhetic  civilization,  p.  196. 
Jehu, 

put  to  tribute  by  Shalmaneser, 

p.  278. 


Jeremiah, 

carried  into  Egypt,  p.  272; 

at  Tahpanhes,  p.  272. 
Joseph, 

historical  setting  of  the  day  of 

J.,  p.  222; 

origin  of  Egyptian  name  of  J., 

pp.  158-160,  223-224; 

Conversation  with  Pharaoh,  p. 

71; 

the  tale  of  two  brothers,   p. 

224; 

the  famine  of  Baba,  p.  225; 

the  Pharaoh  that  "knew  not 

Joseph,"  p.  229. 
Joshua, 

archaeological  book  of  J.,  pp. 

115-119,  259-260. 
Kadesh  Barnea, 

Turning  back  from,  pp.  242, 

251. 
Khossos, 

discoveries  at,  p.  38. 
Law, 

the  law  a  code,  p.  145; 

some  items   added  later,   pp. 

144,  252; 

patriarchal  customs  according 

to,  pp.  206-208. 
Literature, 

interpretation  of,  p.  26; 

difficulties    of    interpretation, 

pp.  23-28; 

only  one  solution  in  problems 

of,  p.  33; 

aided  by  historical  inquiry,  p. 

26; 

etymological,    analytical    and 
speculative  methods,  p.  27; 
Hebrew  literature,  p.  173; 
interpretation    of   rubrics,    p. 
27; 

interpretation  of  the  account 
of  High  Places,  p.  28; 
Moses  lived  in  literary  age,  p. 
^3; 

literary  marks  in  Pentateuch, 
pp.  145,  151-167; 
prophetic  history  and  litera- 
ture, pp.  280-290. 
Literary  Form, 

guidance  concerning,  p.  23; 
literary   canons   must    be 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


317 


Literary  Form — Continued 

learned  from  each  age,  p.  26; 

modern  form  of  literature  much 

to  do  with  modern  standards, 

p.  24; 

archaeology  makes   clear  an- 
cient form,  p.  25. 
Lot, 

rescue  of,  p.  214. 
Melchizedek, 

mysterious  character  of,  p.  75; 

mystery  eliminated,  p.  76; 

esteemed  unhistorical  by  Nol- 

deke,  pp.  129-131; 

esteemed  unhistorical  by  Well- 

hausen,  p.  100. 
Menes, 

historical,  p.  38. 
Minos, 

historical,  p.  38. 

MOAB, 

identified,  p.  97; 

Moabite  stone,  p.  274. 
Monarchy, 

Sudden  emergence  of  Israel's 

culture  at,  pp.  261-266. 
Monuments, 

deciding  voice  of  monuments 

in  biblical  criticism,  p.  29; 

ground  of  the  claim,  p.  30. 
Moses, 

importance    as    lawgiver,    pp. 

142-146; 

minimized   by   reconstructive 

theory,  pp.  142-144; 

this  theory  not  sustained  by 

archaeology,  pp.  144-146; 

Moses  in  Egypt,  p.  233; 

any  account  of  in  Egypt?  p. 

233; 

tablet  of  400  years,  p.  233; 

story  of  M.  fits  into  Egyptian 

history,  pp.  234; 

age  of  M.   a  literary  age,    p. 

243; 

Laws  of  Pentateuch  from  M., 

p.  145; 

Egyptian  evidence  for  Mosaic 

age   of   Pentateuch,    pp.    151- 

169,  243-252. 
Mythology, 

mvthological  views  of  Scrip- 
ture, pp.  98-108,  146-151; 


Mythology — Continued 

Schultz  concerning,  p.  99; 
Noldeke  concerning,  p.  99; 
Wellhausen  concerning,  p.  100; 
Delitzsch  concerning,  p.  100; 
Reuss  concerning,  p.  101 ; 
E.  Meyer  concerning,  p.  101; 
Gunkel  concerning,  p.  108; 
Barton  concerning,  p.  102; 
Jeremias  concerning,  p.  101 ; 
mythological  views  of  Scrip- 
ture refuted  by  archaeology, 
pp.  102,  149; 

Hommel  on  this  refutation,  p. 
103; 

Clay  on  this  refutation,  p.  103; 
Rodgers  on  this  refutation,  p. 
104; 

myths  claimed  as  the  origin  of 
Israel's  religion,  pp.  146-151; 
reference  to  myths  proper  in 
the  Bible,  pp.  149-150; 
astral  myths,  p.  147; 
Abraham  among  the  myths,  p. 
147; 

mythological  view  of  the  Hit- 
tites,  p.  104; 

Budge  concerning,  p.  105; 
refuted  by  discoveries  105; 
adequacy  of   archaeological 
evidence    concerning    mytho- 
logical theories,  p.  106. 

"P."  Document, 

not  confirmed  by  archaeologi- 
cal researches  in  Palestine,  pp. 
257-261. 

Palestine, 

Palestinian  civilization  in  pa- 
triarchal age,  pp.  85-91,  138, 
201-214; 

high  state  of  civilization  in 
patriarchal  age,  pp.  83-91; 
Babylonian  influence  in  days 
of  Patriarchs,  pp.  84,  196; 
semi-barbarous  condition 
claimed  for  patriarchal  days, 
pp.  85-91,  138; 

"P."  document  not  confirmed 
in  P.,  p.  257-261; 
origin  of  Israel's  religious  cul- 
ture in  P.,  pp.  91-95; 
condition  at  time  of  exodus,  p. 
254; 


318 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Palestine — Continued 

gradual  invasion  of,  pp.  115- 
119; 

code  of  Hammurabi  in,  pp.  85, 
206-209; 

Egyptian  booty  from,  p.  90; 
Tell  el-Amarna  tablets  in,  pp. 
85,211; 

discussion  of  civilization  of,  p. 
138; 

ignorance  claimed  for  Pales- 
tine in  patriarchal  age,  pp.  80- 
85; 

political  boundaries  of,  pp. 
266-279; 

excavations  in,  p.  259; 
mingling  of  early  civilizations 
in  patriarchal  times,  p.  117. 

Patriarchs, 

Palestinian  civilization  in  pa- 
triarchal age,  p.  209; 
ignorance  of  patriarchal  age, 
pp.  80-85; 

Von  Bohlen  concerning  ignor- 
ance of  patriarchal  age,  p.  81 ; 
Dillmann    concerning    ignor- 
ance of  patriarchal  age,  p.  81; 
Driver    concerning    ignorance 
of  patriarchal  age,  p.  82; 
Orr   concerning   ignorance    of 
patriarchal  age,  p.  83; 
Reuss  concerning  ignorance  of 
patriarchal  age,  p.  81; 
theory  of  ignorance  discredit- 
ed by  archaeological  research, 
p.  83; 

patriarchal  customs  conformed 
to  law,  pp.  85,  206-209; 
high  moral  ideas  among,  pp. 
85-91 ; 

Kuenen  concerning  high  moral 
ideas  among,  p.  87; 
George  Adam  Smith  concern- 
ing high  moral  ideas  among,  p. 
87; 

Babylonian  influence  on,  pp. 
84,201-209; 

high  state  of  civilization  in 
patriarchal  age,  pp.  89,  85-91 ; 
patriarchs,  not  persons  but 
personifications,  pp.  134-138; 
archaeological  evidence  con- 
cerning, p.  136; 


Patriarchs — Continued 

relations   between   Patriarchs 

and  Hyksos,  pp.  68-72; 

reception  of  Patriarchs  in 

Egypt,  p.  70. 
Pentateuch, 

Pentateuchal  question,  pp.  243- 

252; 

Mosaic  authorship  of,  pp.  243- 

252; 

late   authorship   of,   pp.    151- 

168; 

fallacious  arguments  for  late 

authorship  of,  pp  152,  173; 

Egyptian  evidence  against  late 

authorship  of,  pp.  155-168; 

Egyptian  evidence  for  Mosaic 

age,  pp.  155-168; 

obscurity  of  the  doctrine  of  the 

resurrection  in,  p.  247; 

Egyptian  words  in,   pp.   155- 

168. 
Pharaoh, 

that   "knew  not  Joseph,"   p. 

229; 

oppressor  of  Israel,  p.  230. 
Pilgrim, 

Abraham  a  pilgrim,  p.  73; 

the    first    pilgrim    father,    p. 

212. 
Philistines, 

on  political  horizon  of  Israel, 

p.  273. 
Phoenicians, 

in  Egypt,  p.  70. 
Pithom, 

"At  the  mouth  of  the  East," 

p.  273. 
Political, 

political  boundaries  of  Pales- 
tine, pp.  266-279; 

Egypt  on  political  boundary 

of  Palestine,  pp.  267-273; 

Philistia  on  political  boundary 

of  Palestine,  p.  273; 

Moab    on    political    boundary 

of  Palestine,  pp.  274-277; 

Syria  on  political  boundary  of 

Palestine,  p.  277; 

Assyria  on  political  boundary 

of  Palestine,  pp.  277-279; 

Babylonia  on  political  boun- 
dary of  Palestine,  p.  279. 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


319 


Presuppositions, 

necessary  to  thinking,  p.  20; 

guidance    concerning,    p.    20; 

ofttimes  determines  what  one 

sees,  p.  171; 

fallacies    introduced    by,    pp. 

171-173; 

presuppositions  of  the  Bible, 

p.  171; 

presuppositions  of  the  recon- 
structive theory,  pp.  159,  172. 
Problems, 

many  solutions  of  mathemati- 
cal problems,  p.  32; 

only  one  solution  of  problems 

in  life,  literature  and  history, 

pp.  33-38. 
Progress, 

progress  of  testing  of  critical 

theories  by  archaeological 

facts,  pp.  7,  185-292. 
Prophetic, 

prophetic  history  and  litera- 
ture, pp.  280-292. 
Providence, 

Wideness  of  God's  providence, 

p.  253. 
Ptah  Hotep, 

precepts  of,  p.  144. 
Rameses, 

land  of,  pp.  244-247; 

oppressor  of  Israel,  p.  230. 
Reason, 

in  human  guidance,  p.  38. 
Red  Sea, 

crossing  of,  p.  237. 
Religion, 

comparative  study  of,  p.  91. 

astral  myths  claimed  in  Israel's 

religion,  pp.  87-101,  146-151. 
Resurrection, 

obscurity  of  doctrine  in  Penta- 
teuch, p'  247. 
Revelation, 

progress  in,  p.  217; 

concerning  Cities  of  Plain,  p. 

67. 
Rosetta  Stone, 

effect  of  discovery  of,  p.  36. 
Sacrifice, 

human  sacrifice,  p.  218. 
Semites, 

Semitic  civilization,  p.  197; 


Semites — Continued 

Semitic  language  in  Egypt,  pp. 

215,  232. 
Sennacherib, 

relations  with  Israel  and 

Egypt,  pp.  270,  279. 
Scriptures, 

importance  of  historical  study 

of  S.,  p.  18; 

geographical  and  topogragph- 

ical  trustworthiness  of  S.,  pp. 

48-51; 

ethnographic  correctness  of  S., 

pp.  51-54; 

correctness  of  imagery  of  S., 

pp.  58-60; 

accuracy  of  S.,  p.  60; 

mythological  views  of  S.,  pp. 

98-108. 
Shalmaneser, 

puts  Jehu  to  tribute,  p.  278. 
Shishak, 

relations  with  Israel,  p.  269. 
Sinai, 

location  of,  p.  238. 
Slavery. 

Hebrew  slavery  in  Egvpt,  pp. 

229-231. 

SODOM, 

cf.  Cities  of  the  Plain. 
Speculation, 

scientific  and  unscientific  spec- 
ulation, p.  179. 
Syria, 

relations  with  Israel,  p.  277. 
Tabernacle, 

in  the  wilderness,  pp.  2.39-242; 

account  of,  when  written?  p. 

240. 
Tablet  op  400  Years, 

does  it  refer  to  Moses?  p.  234. 
Tell  el-Amarna  Tablets, 

in  the  civilization  of  Palestine, 

pp.  85,  211. 

all  sorts  of  people  writing  at 

that  time,  p.  85. 
Theories, 

to  be  tested  by  facts,  p.  31; 

not  correct  simply  because 

they  work,  pp.  32-38; 

not  affecting  historicity  and  in- 
tegrity of  Scripture,  pp.  45-78; 

affecting    historicity    and    in- 


320 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Theories — Continued 

tegrity  of  Scripture,  pp.  79-110; 
theory  of  the  mythical  char- 
acter of  Israel's  religion,  pp. 
146-149; 

theory  of  mythical  origin  of 
scriptural  narratives,  pp.  98- 
108; 

critical  theories  just  now  chal- 
lenged, pp.  111-123; 


Theories — Continued 

reconstructive  theories  not 
confirmed,  pp.  124-169; 
presuppositions  of  reconstruc- 
tive theories,  p.  172. 

Volition, 

human  volition  an  element  in 
problems  of  life,  literature  and 
history,  p.  33. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 

Books  by  G.  Frederick  Wright,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  F.G.S.A. 

The  Origin  and  Antiquity  of  Man 

550  pages,  with  numerous  illustrations,  12mo,  cloth.  $2.00  net. 
Postage  15  cents. 

A  new  volume  containing  the  mature  results  of  the  author's  pro- 
longed investigations  of  the  subject,  considered  from  every  point  of 
view. 

The  Ice  Age  in  North  America  and  its  Bearing  upon  the 
Antiquity  of  Man 

New,  thoroughly  revised,  greatly  enlarged  (5th)  edition,  200  illus- 
trations, 800  pages.     8vo,  cloth,  $5.00  net.     Postage  25  cents. 

"The  most  convenient  compendium  in  existence  of  the  features  of 
the  Glacial  period." — Professor  Charles  H.  Hitchcock. 

Scientific  Confirmations  of  Old  Testament  History 
450  pages,  40  illustrations,   12mo,  cloth.     $2.00  net.     Postage  15 

cents. 

"Archaeology  came  to  the  defense  of  the  Bible  a  generation  ago; 

we  believe  that  science  is  here  following  in  like  sort." — The  Record 

{London). 

Books  by  Harold  M.  Wiener,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism 

255  pages,  Svo,  cloth.     $1.50  postpaid. 

"No  one  is  justified  in  forming  an  adverse  opinion  upon  the  subject 
who  has  not  read  the  remarkable  defense  of  Moses  by  this  distin- 
guished and  scholarly  Jewish  barrister." — Rev.  M.  G.  Kyle,  D.D. 

The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 

150  pages,  Svo,  paper.     40  cents  postpaid. 

"Hardly  a  question  ever  raised,  relating  to  the  subject,  that  is  not 
here  treated  in  a  fair  and  masterly  way." — Journal  and  Messenger. 

Pentateuchal  Studies 

300  pages,  Svo,  cloth.     $1.50  postpaid. 

A  new  volume  carrying  the  author's  defense  of  the  Pentateuch  to 
a  conclusion. 

ADDRESS  BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 
Oberlin,  Ohio 


